What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laurent on 25 May 2007 08:58 On May 24, 10:15 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 6:34 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 24, 8:02 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 24, 3:55 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The aether is a concept accepted by those whose knowledge of physics > > > > ranges from "none" to "very little". > > > > The aether is unknowingly accepted by those who abide to GR as a > > > religion. > > > > In 1908, when Minkowski presented the spacetime equation, for the > > > first time the model of the Aether is identified according to the > > > Goettingen group which included Kline, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and > > > Minkowski himself. Since SR does not manifest the concept of > > > spacetime because the Lorentz transform forbids the mathematical > > > mathematical model of spacetime, GR had a big disconnect with SR. > > > > The GR folks should jump up and down for joy because the mathematical > > > model of the Aether is identified as the equation of spacetime > > > itself. Instead, they choose to deny GR having anything to do with > > > the Aether 'till this day. <shrug> > > > Correct, that's why Einstein also called it "The Gravitational Ether" > > as he claimed the universe is one single process, one single field. > > That's why everything is related. > > > These guys think they know physics but when you ask them why is it > > that the properties of any object in motion depend on the objects > > around it they can't without admiting wholeness and > > interconnectedness. You know, like covariance, why is there > > covariance? Why can't an object travel at near light speed without > > time dilation or space contractions in relation to other objects? > > Covariance follows from the equivalence principle, whiner. This is > explained in the relativity textbooks you do not read. Right, but why and how do all objects in space follow this principle. Could it be, as Einstein and Mach said, because it is all one single process? > > Dilational and contraction effects are projection effects from > geometry, nothing more. heheh, now the twins paradox is just metaphor... > > > Could it be because energy is finite and the propagation speed of > > fields need to remain constant in order for matter to hold together? > > No. Word salad does not make physics. > > > heheh, they can't even answer that! > > [snip remainder philosophical whining] If you know, then tell us why does the speed of light NEEDS to remain constant regardless of the frame of reference for matter to exist. I dare you. You should have no problem with this, I already gave you a couple clues. And don't tell us - that's what it says in my text books - because we all know that already.
From: Jimmer on 25 May 2007 10:03 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.
From: Bilge on 25 May 2007 11:29 ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.physics.relativity.] On 2007-05-25, GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(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.
From: Koobee Wublee on 25 May 2007 12:41 Uncle Al presented "Breaking Lorentz Symmetry". http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 In the article ... "To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry." Laws of physics must be the same PERIOD. Or else, the subject of physics cannot exist. What Lorentz Symmetry deals with is a special case of this. That is laws of physics cannot be different based on one's absolute speed. This is the principle of relativity. "It was Einstein who, in 1905, first used Lorentz symmetry to describe the laws of physics in our universe." No, it was Galileo through his principle of relativity. "He took Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of special relativity, whereby he assumed that the laws of physics - including the speed of light in a vacuum - are the same for all inertial observers." Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform. The two postulates of SR are the properties of the Lorentz transform. The principle of relativity as one of the two postulates was already identified by Galileo several hundreds of years ago. The constancy in the speed of light was proposed by Voigt to explain the null result of the 1881 Michelson experiment six years before the more famous Michelson-Morley experiment. There are no special frames of reference referred to as 'inertial'. "These transformations had actually been discovered the previous year by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz when he was attempting to explain the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment." The Lorentz transformation was first put together by Larmor after modifying the Voigt transform to allow for the principle of relativity. "Lorentz symmetry has so far withstood the tests of time, but in recent years theorists have begun to question whether it is indeed an exact symmetry of nature." This is totally BS. Nature shows very clearly the breakdown in the symmetry. Since there is no such paradox in nature as the time paradox also known as the twin's paradox, the symmetry must not exist because the time paradox is a manifestation of both the time dilation and the principle of relativity at the same time. To resolve this paradox, either or both time dilation and the principle of relativity must be wrong.
From: Androcles on 25 May 2007 13:37
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1180111296.137323.23290(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... : Uncle Al presented "Breaking Lorentz Symmetry". : : http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 : : In the article ... : : "To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called : a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be : the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry." Why does it always come down to "observers"? Observers are not objective, they are subjective. : : Laws of physics must be the same PERIOD. Or else, the subject of : physics cannot exist. What Lorentz Symmetry deals with is a special : case of this. That is laws of physics cannot be different based on : one's absolute speed. This is the principle of relativity. : : "It was Einstein who, in 1905, first used Lorentz symmetry to describe : the laws of physics in our universe." : : No, it was Galileo through his principle of relativity. Copernicus made use of the principle of relativity before Galileo. : : "He took Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of special relativity, : whereby he assumed that the laws of physics - including the speed of : light in a vacuum - are the same for all inertial observers." Lies. Einstein's three postulates are: 1) The PoR (an axiom) 2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (False, disproved by Sagnac.) 3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A. (Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. ) : : Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform. The two postulates : of SR are the properties of the Lorentz transform. There are three. Please do not repeat Einstein's own lies. 1) The PoR (an axiom) 2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (False, disproved by Sagnac.) 3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A. (Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. ) : The principle of : relativity as one of the two postulates There are three. Please do not repeat Einstein's own lies. 1) The PoR (an axiom) 2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. (False, disproved by Sagnac.) 3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A. (Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. ) |