What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laurent on 25 May 2007 22:41 On May 25, 10:07 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180143773.809915.5220(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > : On May 25, 9:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > : > > : >news:1180137258.601363.282180(a)w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > : > : On May 25, 6:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > : > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > : > : > > : > : >news:1180133281.407151.249220(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > : > : > : On May 25, 6:27 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > : > : > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > : > : > : > > : > : > : >news:1180131237.076224.102260(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > : > : > : > : On May 25, 5:13 pm, pantel...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > : > : > : > : > On 24 mei, 23:31, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : > : > : > : > > : > : > : > : > > The aether is simply the space between two points. > : > : > : > : > > Laurent > : > : > : > : > > : > : > : > : > It is very simple. > : > : > : > : > Take 2 points in space, the ears for example. > : > : > : > : > Some say there is nothing in between, > : > : > : > : > and some say there is something there. > : > : > : > : > ;-) > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : Well, like I said to Uncle Al, what would you prefer to call > the > : > space > : > : > : > : between particles? > : > : > : > > : > : > : > "space", "nothing", "void", "emptiness", "zilch" and all > synonyms > : > : > thereof. > : > : > : > "that which has no properties whatsoever" > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : > : Cool. I often call it empty space. > : > : > > : > : > No, it is not cool, it has no temperature. Only matter can have > : > : > temperature, which is simply kinetic energy. > : > : > > : > : > : > : > : > : But I agree with Einstein in that it does have physical > properties. > : > : > > : > : > More fool ewe. > : > : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF > : > : > : > : > : > : You seem upset. Why is that? > : > > : > HAHAHA! Too funny! > : > > : > More fool ewe, I'm the least emotional person you'll ever find. > : > Let me know when you want to discuss physics and not my emotional > : > state, that's off limits. I'll tie you in knots (or nots), I've years of > : > experience dealing with prats. > : > : Right, the right term is derranged. > > http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derranged > Suggestions for derranged: > 1. deranged 2. deranges > 3. dangered 4. derringer > 5. drainages 6. durneder > 7. danegeld 8. denatured > 9. drenched 10. drainage > 11. drained 12. de-energized > 13. Durrenmatt 14. demander > 15. derailed 16. danged > 17. durnedest 18. durned > 19. deaerated 20. darned > > By the way, you seem upset. Why is that, illiterate fuckhead? > Never mind, I'm not interested. Time for a plonk (again). > Come back with another new name. > *plonk* " Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. 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 to it. " ------ Albert Einstein Who are you compared to Einstein?
From: GSS on 26 May 2007 00:47 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. GSS
From: Jimmer on 26 May 2007 02:23 On May 26, 10:41 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 10:07 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > > > > > > > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1180143773.809915.5220(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > : On May 25, 9:14 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > : > > > : >news:1180137258.601363.282180(a)w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > : > : On May 25, 6:59 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > > : > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > : > : > > > : > : >news:1180133281.407151.249220(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > : > : > : On May 25, 6:27 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > > : > : > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > : > : > : > > > : > : > : >news:1180131237.076224.102260(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > : > : > : > : On May 25, 5:13 pm, pantel...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > : > : > : > : > On 24 mei, 23:31, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > : > : > : > : > > > : > : > : > : > > The aether is simply the space between two points. > > : > : > : > : > > Laurent > > : > : > : > : > > > : > : > : > : > It is very simple. > > : > : > : > : > Take 2 points in space, the ears for example. > > : > : > : > : > Some say there is nothing in between, > > : > : > : > : > and some say there is something there. > > : > : > : > : > ;-) > > : > : > : > : > > : > : > : > : > > : > : > : > : Well, like I said to Uncle Al, what would you prefer to call > > the > > : > space > > : > : > : > : between particles? > > : > : > : > > > : > : > : > "space", "nothing", "void", "emptiness", "zilch" and all > > synonyms > > : > : > thereof. > > : > : > : > "that which has no properties whatsoever" > > : > : > : > > : > : > : > > : > : > : Cool. I often call it empty space. > > : > : > > > : > : > No, it is not cool, it has no temperature. Only matter can have > > : > : > temperature, which is simply kinetic energy. > > : > : > > > : > : > : > > : > : > : But I agree with Einstein in that it does have physical > > properties. > > : > : > > > : > : > More fool ewe. > > : > : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF > > : > : > > : > : > > : > : You seem upset. Why is that? > > : > > > : > HAHAHA! Too funny! > > : > > > : > More fool ewe, I'm the least emotional person you'll ever find. > > : > Let me know when you want to discuss physics and not my emotional > > : > state, that's off limits. I'll tie you in knots (or nots), I've years of > > : > experience dealing with prats. > > : > > : Right, the right term is derranged. > > > http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/derranged > > Suggestions for derranged: > > 1. deranged 2. deranges > > 3. dangered 4. derringer > > 5. drainages 6. durneder > > 7. danegeld 8. denatured > > 9. drenched 10. drainage > > 11. drained 12. de-energized > > 13. Durrenmatt 14. demander > > 15. derailed 16. danged > > 17. durnedest 18. durned > > 19. deaerated 20. darned > > > By the way, you seem upset. Why is that, illiterate fuckhead? > > Never mind, I'm not interested. Time for a plonk (again). > > Come back with another new name. > > *plonk* > > " Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, > therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of > relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there > not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of > existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), > nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. 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 to it. " ------ > Albert Einstein > > Who are you compared to Einstein?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The aether of General Relativity Einstein mentioned in his talk above seems to refer only to the properties of geometry and topology (and the corresponding physics that automatically arise from it) and unlike the earlier Lorentz Aether where it has mechanical properties which Einstein later debunked. What Einstein was describing in the above talk given on May 5, 1920 was his thinking evolution of how he thought of the Aether. Isn't it Einstein also mentioned: "The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter." Anyway. I think the main argument is this. We know there is physics to geometry or topology where General Relativity can be described. But can geometry or topology be physical if they fail to obey energy considerations?? In other words, is it possible there may be something more primary than space that is made up certain kind of energy that creates space and the corresponding geometry, etc.??? I think these energy behind space is what Laurent simply called the Aether. It is a valid question whether there is something behind space. So is there?? Why not if the answer is there is categorically not anything behind space. You see, if there is, there are consequences and connected to the search for the Theory of Everything. J.
From: Benj on 26 May 2007 02:40 Laurent wrote: > " Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, > therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of > relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there > not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of > existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), > nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. 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 to it. " ------ > Albert Einstein > > Who are you compared to Einstein? I love this group. There are SO many people here trying to "prove" they are smarter than Einstein in vain! But Einstein said it best. Today the non-existence of aether is some kind of dogma. If you don't totally reject aether you are some kind of heretic. But the blessed saint Einstein believed in it and even expounded on it. Compare if you will the statement of the blessed Einstein above: " ...space without ether is unthinkable; for in such a space there would not only be no propagation of light..." with that of that of Halliday and Resnik spouting the party line: "No medium is necessary for the transmission of electromagnetic waves, light passing freely, for example, through the vacuum of outer space from the stars". Note however that "vacuum of outer space" is NOT defined! Clearly Einstein was smart enough to surmise that if "void" is actually "nothing" then it simply CANNOT have "properties"! Properties have to arise from STRUCTURE and structure implies material existence at some level. Perhaps not at the gaseous level assumed in the 19th century, but nevertheless... So while physicists all participate in some massive circle-jerk that denies the existence of the properties (ie. structure) of space all the while thinking they are defending the Blessed Einstein, fact is the beatified saint actually said something else and is laughing at them! He quite clearly said that space has properties and therefore by inference those properties are capable of study. I have reason to expect that one day space will be shown to have the properties of a field. We can even go further asking the key question, "does a true vacuum exist"? Why shouldn't it exist? If Aether is "something" then a "true vacuum" must be nothing! And the way we PROVE it is nothing is by demonstrating it has NO PROPERTIES at all! Are you guys following this, so far? Here is a bit of a hint. I used to work for a guy who used to tell me that "electrons don't exist"! His theory was that electrons were simply "bubbles" or maybe vortexes is a better word, of "true vacuum" in space. In other words the centers of electrons have no properties! He's not the only one with that idea. See the paper by Paramahamsa Tewari, "Phenomena of Electric Charge by Space Rotation". Same ideas. So how about you guys get out of the circle-jerk of trying to prove you are all smarter than Einstein by defending some bogus dogma and try to do some actual physics to see if what he said might not actually be true? Benj (All similarity to the book: A Canticle for Liebowitz is freely admitted)
From: Spirit of Truth on 26 May 2007 02:58
"Jimmer" <jimmerlight(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180138588.969664.183830(a)a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > Laurent situation is simply this. > > He wants to explore the causal mechanisms behind the world. This is > not bad by > itself. What is bad is he wants to use the term "Aether" which 99.5% > of > physicists already understood to be non-existence in light of Special > Relativity. > In other words. He wants to redefine the Aether and go against the > mainstream. > Try to invent another name for it for what you describe has some > validity. > For example. If there is nothing between space. How come correlations > occur > in entanglement.. It's like there is something in space that > "conducts" it > although in a new nonclassical manner. Also somehow the wavefunctions > seem to have an existential counterpart which may be > "located" (excuse > for this term) 'somewhere" in space although everything is not > newtonian > but way beyond it. > > In short. Laurent "Aether" descriptions have some existence but using > the > word "Aether" just makes it so hard to convey it. But then maybe > Laurent > enjoys debate and is so attached to the word "Aether" like using it as > a > weapon to dealt a blow into convensional physics. But the resistance > you'd face would be hard and we only have one lifetime and don't > waste > half of it debating on the use of the Aether term. Focus on the > mechanisms and invent new terms. It's a fact that there are more > things > going on in this world than thought of (or even dreamt of) by > physicists. > In centuries to come. It will be more clear but we have to be more > accurate > in terms and in the conveyance. > > J. And why wouldn't you consider the Higgs field as an Aether? from: Spirit of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! |