Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 22:07 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "Albert Einstein gave an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. He chose as his topic Ether and the Theory of Relativity." Another famous and famously misinterpreted quote of Einstein's is the following: 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins/On-the_electrodynamics/index.html "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." Einstein is not saying aether is superfluous. Einstein is saying an "absolutely stationary space' is superfluous. This fits with the following Einstein quote: "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Which is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment. Einstein could not allow the "idea of motion" to be applied to the aether because that would have caused his train gedanken to fall apart due to the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference not being equal. If Einstein had realized light travels at 'c' relative to the aether he could have abandoned the train gedanken and allowed the idea of motion to be applied to the aether. On Jan 4, 9:54 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > do you have the date of the essay by doctor Einstein?... it seems > that > you are agreeing with him "insofar as," but not really > with his penultimate conclusion -- that is, > whenver he was concluding what is sufficiently subtle as > to be not totally apparent without further thought. also, > he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may > be more responsible, after all, forr the time-space crack-up > than doctor Minkowski; can you say, > Useless fomalism? > > however, the real problem is your persistent use > -- with whomever else from the past & future -- > of the the concept of vacuum, > which is strictly relative or active (as in, > That giant sucking sound). > > > The difference between using the term aether and vacuum when > > describing light is, light is not described as traveling at 'c' with > > respect to the vacuum. Light does travel at 'c' with respect to the > > aether. > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with > > the matter (the H2O molecules) and the state of the aether in > > neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement and > > entrainment. > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html > --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What?http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?http://larouchepub.com/pr/2009/091229reid_exposed.html
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 22:23 On Jan 4, 10:04 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > that's an interesting anomaly; > how does it relate to the heliopause & so on?... and, > what is it about aether that causes it to entrain -- > is that it's sole property?... well, > doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed > about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but > that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts > were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "Albert Einstein gave an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. He chose as his topic Ether and the Theory of Relativity." Another famous and famously misinterpreted quote of Einstein's is the following: "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment. Aether is displaced based on mass. The more massive an object is per volume, the less aether it contains, the more aether it displaces. Aether is not at rest when displaced. The aether 'pushes back'. The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. Aether entrainment is not the reason for gravity. If you look at the satellites of Jupiter here: http://janus.astro.umd.edu/SolarSystems/ (Select Start-->Jupiter and then use the '+' key to drill down to Jupiter's inner moons) You can see the outer moons of Jupiter orbit in the opposite direction of the inner moons. Jupiter's inner moons exist in Jupiter's entrained aether. Jupiter's outer moons 'fell out of' Jupiter's entrained aether (similar to the Pioneer satellites 'falling out of' the Sun's entrained aether), but all of Jupiter's satellites are under the effects of the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by Jupiter. Aether displacement and entrainment are the main properties of the aether. Not sure what is going on with the heliopause. Haven't had a chance to think about it much yet. > > It's an analogy. Your refusal to offer any evidence against the Sun's > > entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus being the reason > > for the Pioneer Effect is analogous to your insistence in flying > > wombats without providing evidence of any. > > thus: > do you have the date of the essay by doctor Einstein?... it seems > that > you are agreeing with him "insofar as," but not really > with his penultimate conclusion -- that is, > whenver he was concluding what is sufficiently subtle as > to be not totally apparent without further thought. also, > he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may > be more responsible, after all, forr the time-space crack-up > than doctor Minkowski; can you say, > Useless fomalism? > > however, the real problem is your persistent use > -- with whomever else from the past & future -- > of the the concept of vacuum, > which is strictly relative or active (as in, > That giant sucking sound). > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html > --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What?http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?http://larouchepub.com/pr/2009/091229reid_exposed.html
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 22:26 On Jan 4, 10:04 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > that's an interesting anomaly; > how does it relate to the heliopause & so on?... and, > what is it about aether that causes it to entrain -- > is that it's sole property?... well, > doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed > about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but > that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts > were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment. Aether is displaced based on mass. The more massive an object is per volume, the less aether it contains, the more aether it displaces. Aether is not at rest when displaced. The aether 'pushes back'. The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. Aether entrainment is not the reason for gravity. If you look at the satellites of Jupiter here: http://janus.astro.umd.edu/SolarSystems/ (Select Start-->Jupiter and then use the '+' key to drill down to Jupiter's inner moons) You can see the outer moons of Jupiter orbit in the opposite direction of the inner moons. Jupiter's inner moons exist in Jupiter's entrained aether. Jupiter's outer moons 'fell out of' Jupiter's entrained aether (similar to the Pioneer satellites 'falling out of' the Sun's entrained aether), but all of Jupiter's satellites are under the effects of the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by Jupiter. Aether displacement and entrainment are the main properties of the aether. Not sure what is going on with the heliopause. Haven't had a chance to think about it much yet. > > It's an analogy. Your refusal to offer any evidence against the Sun's > > entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus being the reason > > for the Pioneer Effect is analogous to your insistence in flying > > wombats without providing evidence of any. > > thus: > do you have the date of the essay by doctor Einstein?... it seems > that > you are agreeing with him "insofar as," but not really > with his penultimate conclusion -- that is, > whenver he was concluding what is sufficiently subtle as > to be not totally apparent without further thought. also, > he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may > be more responsible, after all, forr the time-space crack-up > than doctor Minkowski; can you say, > Useless fomalism? > > however, the real problem is your persistent use > -- with whomever else from the past & future -- > of the the concept of vacuum, > which is strictly relative or active (as in, > That giant sucking sound). > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html > --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What?http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?http://larouchepub.com/pr/2009/091229reid_exposed.html
From: spudnik on 4 Jan 2010 22:27 mmm-hm, 1920. by the way, there is an old fluff-over in the Moving Bodies paper, but I don't know if you can find it on the larouchepub.com sites, concerning the homopolar generator. anyway, along with not answering about "the" vacuum (and the "photon"), you have yet to pose the very need of aether, at all, instead of "just the atoms" and their degree of separation, viz-a-vu Fizeau -- mentioned in the talk. (and, as stated, Einstien was just wrong, circa 1920, about light not being a transverse wave in a fluid, such as air or water or "vacuum" -- although plasma may not have all of the usual properties of those Earth fluids; it's still hydrodynamical, "magnetohydrodynamical." and, that term, basically, subsumes everything that you reflexively dump into the nebulous "movable aether feast." maybe, you should coin a new name for it, taht says exactly what its property(s) is (are); I vote, at this moment, for "entrainspielstuff" -- de entrain!... de entrain! > 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins/On-t... > > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place." > > Einstein is not saying aether is superfluous. Einstein is saying an > "absolutely stationary space' is superfluous. > If Einstein had realized light travels at 'c' relative to the aether > he could have abandoned the train gedanken and allowed the idea of > motion to be applied to the aether. thus: the Riemann hypothesis may be an aberration, but you have to explain, why or what that is, so that we can see "what it all means" -- meaning centuries of mathematical proving grounds of "verifiably important problems." thus: that's an interesting anomaly; how does it relate to the heliopause & so on?... and, what is it about aether that causes it to entrain -- is that it's sole property?... well, doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. > entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus being the reason > for the Pioneer Effect is analogous to your insistence in flying thus: do you have the date of the essay by doctor Einstein?... it seems that you are agreeing with him "insofar as," but not really with his penultimate conclusion -- that is, whenver he was concluding, what is sufficiently subtle as to be not totally apparent, without further thought. also, he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may be more responsible, after all, for the time-space crack-up than doctor Minkowski; can you say, Most useless formalism of Century 20.1? however, the real problem is your persistent use -- with whomever else from the past & future -- of the the concept of vacuum, as Pascal first thought of it, which is really, strictly relative or active (as in, That giant sucking sound, you hear, when you're trying to read this ****). > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: Inertial on 4 Jan 2010 22:28
"spudnik" <Space998(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:74e3db52-e9a9-4917-af5e-678ea34eb934(a)21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com... > mmm-hm, 1920. by the way, Please don't top-post .. its poor newsgroup etiquette |