What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Spirit of Truth on 26 May 2007 03:05 "Jimmer" <jimmerlight(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180101806.215224.278740(a)n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> There is no source or Platonia. All existing information exists >> within the system that contains and uses it, nothing coming from an >> external source. >> >> -- >> Laurent- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > What you suggested is more practical of course. The source I'm > talking > about is Bohm Implicate Order. But it's ok if you don't take that as > possibility. > > Let's go of the Aether. Aether was postulated to explore a possible > privilege frame of reference. But Special Relativity has proven > everything esp. motion is relative. So the Aether is already > destroyed. > Aether and Special Relativity are opposite. Since Special Relativity > wins, the Aether loses. So there is no Aether. > > J. Ok, well review the following re SR and notice that one observer will see a past happening and a future happening: http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node77.html Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which IS false. What Relativitists ignore is that 'lack of simultaneity' is not real so the Lorentz math is not the correct math to use for the M & M experiment neither for the aether theory nor SR. from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
From: Androcles on 26 May 2007 04:17 "Jimmer" <jimmerlight(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180160580.583981.73880(a)x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... : Anyway. I think the main argument is this. We know : there is physics to geometry Raving mad ...
From: Bilge on 26 May 2007 06:41 On 2007-05-26, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine? > Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past > and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which > IS false. Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary, I'm sure. Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in which those postulates appear? > What Relativitists ignore is that 'lack of simultaneity' is not real Ahhhh... Yet another fruitcake whose definition of ``real'' is ``that which contradicts real experiments.'' > so the Lorentz math is not the correct math to use for the > M & M experiment neither for the aether theory nor SR. Get another hobby. Apparently, geometry and trigonometry are over your head.
From: Bilge on 26 May 2007 06:46 On 2007-05-26, GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 8:29 pm, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: >> ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.physics.relativity.] >> On 2007-05-25, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > On May 25, 2:31 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The aether is simply the space between two points. David Bohm called >> >> it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates >> >> us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of >> >> Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they >> >> explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the >> >> aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does >> >> it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day >> >> he died. >> > [........] >> >> Laurent >> >> > The notions of aether, physical space, empty space, vacuum and their >> > modern reincarnation the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity - >> > call it by any name. >> >> Obviously, you have never studied physics, otherwise you would >> recognize the differences. > > Kindly let us know the differences that *you recognize* if any. The aether is a hypothetical physical medium which occupies space. The vacuum is the ray in hilbert space which contains no particles. If the difference is not obvious to you, then you need a serious course in remedial logic. [Hint: physical media are made up of particles.]
From: harry on 26 May 2007 07:22
On May 26, 12:46 pm, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: > On 2007-05-26, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:29 pm, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: > >> ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.physics.relativity.] > >> On 2007-05-25, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > On May 25, 2:31 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> The aether is simply the space between two points. David Bohm called > >> >> it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates > >> >> us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of > >> >> Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they > >> >> explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the > >> >> aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does > >> >> it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day > >> >> he died. > >> > [........] > >> >> Laurent > > >> > The notions of aether, physical space, empty space, vacuum and their > >> > modern reincarnation the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity - > >> > call it by any name. > > >> Obviously, you have never studied physics, otherwise you would > >> recognize the differences. > > > Kindly let us know the differences that *you recognize* if any. > > The aether is a hypothetical physical medium which occupies space. > The vacuum is the ray in hilbert space which contains no particles. > If the difference is not obvious to you, then you need a serious course > in remedial logic. [Hint: physical media are made up of particles.] Bilge, I seriously thought that you studied physics. However, in no physics course have I encountered such nonsense - abstract mathematical concepts should not be confounded with physical concepts. Harald |