Discussion:
About Einstein's aether
(too old to reply)
Laurent
2005-09-15 18:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Einstein's aether - which the aether I mostly talk about - isn't bound by
time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the
aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of fixed laws
by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but non-material
quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and connectedness. We
can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.

Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to take
place.

Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real but
non-material ratios which often help determine Lorentz invariant geometrical
properties of objects. Take the fine structure constant for example, change
its value and you get a totally different universe.

Quantum phenomena are caused by fractal topological defects embedded in and
forming a growing three-dimensional fractal process-space, which is
essentially a quantum foam.

"Topological space (aether) can be defined as a set with a collection of
subsets satisfying the conditions that both the empty set and the set itself
belong to the collection, the union of any number of the subsets is also an
element of the collection, and the intersection of any finite number of the
subsets is an element of the collection." -- Webster dictionary


Even Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological
quantum field theory.

" But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the
ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical
and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
electromagnetic) events. "

" 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



[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra and
Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at
the Planck Scale"]

***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the
passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change. "***

" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric.
"

" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical
physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be
perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge
if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics
that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the
process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome
in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state'
are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of
'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical
physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply.
" -------- John Baez



"When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most
important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we should and
should not be considering. Containment principles, already well known in
cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g., "The physical
universe contains all and only that which is physical." The predicate
"physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a structured set, "the
physical universe" (because the universe has structure and contains objects,
it is a structured set). But this usage of tautology is somewhat loose, for
it technically amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of propositional
tautology called autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the
predicate physical is being defined on topological containment in the
physical universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively contained
in the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of "physical" is a
two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive containment.
While this principle, which we might regard as a statement of "physicalism",
is often confused with materialism on the grounds that "physical" equals
"material", the material may in fact be only a part of what makes up the
physical. Similarly, the physical may only be a part of what makes up the
real. Because the content of reality is a matter of science as opposed to
mere semantics, this issue can be resolved only by rational or empirical
evidence, not by assumption alone." -------- Christopher Michael Langan

http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html


---------------------------------------------------------

There isn't a change in the incoming flux of quantum matter (ZPR, material
space, Guth's 'false vacuum') as much as there is a change in the
information processing, or more simply said, a change in process speed.

Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.


To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.

--
Laurent


--------------------------------------------------------


Some say the aether concept was already discredited, but they are wrong,
please read carefully:


Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro


(Apeiron, Montreal, 2000)


"Whether gravitational, electrical, and nuclear interactions can be
encompassed within a unified theoretical structure, and whether such a
structure will be conceived as a plenary space with physical properties,
remains to be seen. But if the history of the successive dynasties of aether
is any guide, we can eventually proclaim:


The luminiferous aether is dead!


Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich


Nowadays, nobody talks any longer about the ether in scientific ortohodox
books, in higher school or university classes, etc., yet this concept has
been one of the corner stones of many rational interpretation of natural
phenomena for a great long time - to such an extent that a good physicist
recently wrote to us that all XIXth century physics tried to "prove the
existence of the ether which was later proved not to exist".


If we ask why the ether has disappeared from the major scenes of our
knowledge of Nature, everybody will answer that Einstein has proved, with
his celebrated theory of relativity, that the ether does not exist. This was
one of those concepts that old physicists were accustomed to use in their
"primitive" speculations, but today, luckily, it has been completely
overthrown, together with other similar relics of "superstition", by XXth
century scientists. It was in that time that mankind has realized the
greatest achievements of ever in science and technology, which can be
interpreted as the goal of a long walk, that began thanks to such men like
Copernic, Galilei, Descartes, Newton,... just sprung out from the darkness
of Middle Ages.


"common people", and even the "common scientist", would be surprised in
reading this book (about 240 pp.), written by the physicist and philosopher
Ludwik Kostro, and intended for physicists as well as for historians of
science, philosophers, or in general for any people interested in the
development of scientific culture. As a matter of fact, it is entirely
dedicated to the troublesome relationships between the greatest scientist of
all times - or at least many people think so! - and the elusive ether.

Let us see the question with the author's own words (Introduction):

"In the eyes of most physicists and philosophers, Albert Einstein has
acquired a reputation for abolishing the concept of the ether as a medium
filling space (or identified with it), which was responsible for carrying
electromagnetic, gravitational and other interactions. Today, this notion is
echoed in textbooks, encyclopaedias, and scientific reviews. However, it
does not fully reflect the historical truth, and in a sense even represents
a distortion [...] Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11
years - from 1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was
too radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."

The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions which
Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is therefore
full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up to the point
of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special appendix). Here
they are some examples of Einstein's thoughts:

"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier
publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity,
instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that
with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as
a carrier of physical qualities."


Moreover:

" [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak
about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we
will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to
assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states.

[...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties,
i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity [...] ".


And again:

"This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development if
science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by relativity
theory."

It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein, where
he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to say, the
necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but endowed with
physical properties:

"There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the ether. To
deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all
physical properties to empty space."

"The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is mostly a
latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."


----------------------------------------------------------------


From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)


" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour
of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that
empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
mechanics do not harmonize with this view. --- *For the mechanical behaviour
of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on
relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its
state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not
appertaining to the system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look upon
the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton
objectivises space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with
real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space
"Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, ---
*another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real,* ---
to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which
is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean
acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in
place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial
resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes
action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he
may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows
Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.
But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of
thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by
Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of
inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.


Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of
relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum
of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time,
and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory
under consideration.


(Which means that all points in space are interconnected) -- Laurent


This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of
space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space
" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling
us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials
g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has
again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely
from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. ---
*The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine
mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*


What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity
as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, --- *that the state of
the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and
the state of the ether in neighbouring places,* --- which are amenable to
law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the
Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by
nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if
we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the
former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the
outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "


[...]


" ...when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into
harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of
theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the
theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical,
and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in
the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed
atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According
to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying
out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the
carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all
electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.


As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it,
in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical
property of which it has not been deprived by H, A. Lorentz. It may be added
that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether
its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. " ---- Albert Einstein


----------------------------------------------------


Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific "A
history of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" published in 1951 said:


"As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of the
nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth, chiefly as
result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to
the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such attempts must
always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour, and it became customary
to refer to the interplanetary spaces as "vacuous"; the vacuum being
conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except that of propagating
electromagnetic waves. But with the development of quantum electrodynamics,
the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point"
oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations
of electric charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a
dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name
"vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical
word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T. Whittaker


-----------------------------------


In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said -


"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its
capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future." --- P.
Dirac


-----------------------------------


The science popularizer Zukav writes -


"Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles are
excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the vacuum
state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high symmetry that
we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ---- G. Zukav


-----------------------------------


The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states -


"This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been
extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions, each
type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these 'quantum field
theories', the classical contrast between the solid particles and the space
surrounding them is completely overcome. The quantum field is seen as the
fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium which is present everywhere
in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field;
concentrations of energy which come and go, thereby losing their individual
character and dissolving into the underlying field. In the words of Albert
Einstein:


" We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of
space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in this
new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only
reality. " (page 210)


--------------------------------------------------------


And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of what
they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied:


"Of elements."


"Are there then four" he asked.


"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."


"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water and air
and earth and fire?"


"There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the stuff
of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so
do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."


Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas
answered:


"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."


"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"


"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it
engenders all living things."


- The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD.


--------------------------------------------------------------


"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of
quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of
aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of
present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by
relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
. . .


We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
mechanics and conformable to relativity, provided we are willing to consider
a perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the
experimental point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this.
We must make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the
vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather
forced to have an aether."

---- P. A. M. Dirac,
"Is There an Aether?"
Nature 168 (1951): 906-7.


----------------------------------------------------------


"...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action
and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused
by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this
agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my
readers." --- Isaac Newton
Sam Wormley
2005-09-15 18:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Einstein's aether - which the aether I mostly talk about - isn't bound by
time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the
aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of fixed laws
by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but non-material
quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and connectedness. We
can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to take
place.
Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real but
non-material ratios which often help determine Lorentz invariant geometrical
properties of objects. Take the fine structure constant for example, change
its value and you get a totally different universe.
Quantum phenomena are caused by fractal topological defects embedded in and
forming a growing three-dimensional fractal process-space, which is
essentially a quantum foam.
"Topological space (aether) can be defined as a set with a collection of
subsets satisfying the conditions that both the empty set and the set itself
belong to the collection, the union of any number of the subsets is also an
element of the collection, and the intersection of any finite number of the
subsets is an element of the collection." -- Webster dictionary
Even Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological
quantum field theory.
" But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the
ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical
and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
electromagnetic) events. "
" 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
[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra and
Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at
the Planck Scale"]
***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the
passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change. "***
" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric.
"
" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical
physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be
perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge
if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics
that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the
process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome
in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state'
are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of
'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical
physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply.
" -------- John Baez
"When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most
important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we should and
should not be considering. Containment principles, already well known in
cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g., "The physical
universe contains all and only that which is physical." The predicate
"physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a structured set, "the
physical universe" (because the universe has structure and contains objects,
it is a structured set). But this usage of tautology is somewhat loose, for
it technically amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of propositional
tautology called autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the
predicate physical is being defined on topological containment in the
physical universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively contained
in the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of "physical" is a
two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive containment.
While this principle, which we might regard as a statement of "physicalism",
is often confused with materialism on the grounds that "physical" equals
"material", the material may in fact be only a part of what makes up the
physical. Similarly, the physical may only be a part of what makes up the
real. Because the content of reality is a matter of science as opposed to
mere semantics, this issue can be resolved only by rational or empirical
evidence, not by assumption alone." -------- Christopher Michael Langan
http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html
---------------------------------------------------------
There isn't a change in the incoming flux of quantum matter (ZPR, material
space, Guth's 'false vacuum') as much as there is a change in the
information processing, or more simply said, a change in process speed.
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
--------------------------------------------------------
Some say the aether concept was already discredited, but they are wrong,
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
(Apeiron, Montreal, 2000)
"Whether gravitational, electrical, and nuclear interactions can be
encompassed within a unified theoretical structure, and whether such a
structure will be conceived as a plenary space with physical properties,
remains to be seen. But if the history of the successive dynasties of aether
The luminiferous aether is dead!
Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich
Nowadays, nobody talks any longer about the ether in scientific ortohodox
books, in higher school or university classes, etc., yet this concept has
been one of the corner stones of many rational interpretation of natural
phenomena for a great long time - to such an extent that a good physicist
recently wrote to us that all XIXth century physics tried to "prove the
existence of the ether which was later proved not to exist".
If we ask why the ether has disappeared from the major scenes of our
knowledge of Nature, everybody will answer that Einstein has proved, with
his celebrated theory of relativity, that the ether does not exist. This was
one of those concepts that old physicists were accustomed to use in their
"primitive" speculations, but today, luckily, it has been completely
overthrown, together with other similar relics of "superstition", by XXth
century scientists. It was in that time that mankind has realized the
greatest achievements of ever in science and technology, which can be
interpreted as the goal of a long walk, that began thanks to such men like
Copernic, Galilei, Descartes, Newton,... just sprung out from the darkness
of Middle Ages.
"common people", and even the "common scientist", would be surprised in
reading this book (about 240 pp.), written by the physicist and philosopher
Ludwik Kostro, and intended for physicists as well as for historians of
science, philosophers, or in general for any people interested in the
development of scientific culture. As a matter of fact, it is entirely
dedicated to the troublesome relationships between the greatest scientist of
all times - or at least many people think so! - and the elusive ether.
"In the eyes of most physicists and philosophers, Albert Einstein has
acquired a reputation for abolishing the concept of the ether as a medium
filling space (or identified with it), which was responsible for carrying
electromagnetic, gravitational and other interactions. Today, this notion is
echoed in textbooks, encyclopaedias, and scientific reviews. However, it
does not fully reflect the historical truth, and in a sense even represents
a distortion [...] Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11
years - from 1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was
too radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions which
Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is therefore
full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up to the point
of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special appendix). Here
"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier
publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity,
instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that
with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as
a carrier of physical qualities."
" [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak
about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we
will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to
assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states.
[...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties,
i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity [...] ".
"This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development if
science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by relativity
theory."
It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein, where
he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to say, the
necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but endowed with
"There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the ether. To
deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all
physical properties to empty space."
"The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is mostly a
latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."
----------------------------------------------------------------
From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)
" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour
of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that
empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
mechanics do not harmonize with this view. --- *For the mechanical behaviour
of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on
relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its
state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not
appertaining to the system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look upon
the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton
objectivises space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with
real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space
"Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, ---
*another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real,* ---
to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which
is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean
acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in
place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial
resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes
action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he
may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows
Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.
But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of
thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by
Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of
inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of
relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum
of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time,
and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory
under consideration.
(Which means that all points in space are interconnected) -- Laurent
This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of
space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space
" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling
us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials
g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has
again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely
from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. ---
*The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine
mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity
as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, --- *that the state of
the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and
the state of the ether in neighbouring places,* --- which are amenable to
law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the
Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by
nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if
we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the
former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the
outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "
[...]
" ...when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into
harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of
theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the
theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical,
and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in
the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed
atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According
to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying
out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the
carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all
electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.
As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it,
in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical
property of which it has not been deprived by H, A. Lorentz. It may be added
that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether
its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. " ---- Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------
Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific "A
"As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of the
nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth, chiefly as
result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to
the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such attempts must
always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour, and it became customary
to refer to the interplanetary spaces as "vacuous"; the vacuum being
conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except that of propagating
electromagnetic waves. But with the development of quantum electrodynamics,
the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point"
oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations
of electric charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a
dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name
"vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical
word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T. Whittaker
-----------------------------------
In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said -
"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its
capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future." --- P.
Dirac
-----------------------------------
The science popularizer Zukav writes -
"Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles are
excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the vacuum
state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high symmetry that
we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ---- G. Zukav
-----------------------------------
The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states -
"This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been
extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions, each
type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these 'quantum field
theories', the classical contrast between the solid particles and the space
surrounding them is completely overcome. The quantum field is seen as the
fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium which is present everywhere
in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field;
concentrations of energy which come and go, thereby losing their individual
character and dissolving into the underlying field. In the words of Albert
" We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of
space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in this
new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only
reality. " (page 210)
--------------------------------------------------------
And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of what
"Of elements."
"Are there then four" he asked.
"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."
"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water and air
and earth and fire?"
"There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the stuff
of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so
do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."
Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas
"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."
"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"
"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it
engenders all living things."
- The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of
quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of
aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of
present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by
relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
. . .
We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
mechanics and conformable to relativity, provided we are willing to consider
a perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the
experimental point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this.
We must make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the
vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather
forced to have an aether."
---- P. A. M. Dirac,
"Is There an Aether?"
Nature 168 (1951): 906-7.
----------------------------------------------------------
"...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action
and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused
by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this
agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my
readers." --- Isaac Newton
What is important is the empirical results of observation and
experiment. Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished.

Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-16 05:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
What is important is the empirical results of observation and
experiment. Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished.
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
The only tangible argument describing SR is none other than the set of good
old Lorentz Transforms. As it is presented by Einstein and his
contemporaries such as Lorentz and Lorentz, it does have a great tendancy to
mislead anyone even ones with PhDs to turn their backs on the Aethers. The
whole misunderstanding should rectify itself if one can present the Lorentz
Transforms not just dependent on relative speeds of the observing and the
observed frames but also these frames' observed values of the speed of light
in vacuum. With one able to describe how two frames with drastically
different values of the speeds of light in vacuum able to observe one
another, there is just no morre excuse to turn your back on the Aether. It
must exist where each associated Aether particle must be massless and
chargeless and spinless. These traits are not the easiest to allow a
definite detectection even with modern advancement in technology.

The Lorentz Transforms killed the Aether. Despite all the great minds
including Einstein who was created to be one by the media, the transforms
are not complete. We can write down the more generalized version of them to
allow all sorts of the values of the speed of light in vacuum to observe and
be observed by anyone. Since GR can only be correct if there is no Aether,
it is in jeopody of being regarded as a non-crank theory. And Einstein is
close to be regarded as one of the dozen cranks who is able to fudge their
answers according to the observed Mercury's orbital anomaly.

Don't believe in Einstein's fudging? Concentrate on the integration
constant from integration of Lagrangian Method on time. These same PhDs are
avoiding the following equation describing how an object trapped in the
curvature of spacetime according to the Schwarzschild metric. This equation
can easily be derived from the spacetime equation of a non-rotating and
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.

E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)

Where

** U = G M / r / c^2
** B^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / c^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2 / c^2 / (1 - 2 U)...
** m c^2 B^2 / 2 = Newtonian kinetic energy
** m c^2 U = - Newtonian potential energy

Applying the principle of conservation of energy where (dE/dt = dE/dr = 0),
there is no absolute way to avoid a null effect on Mercury's orbital
anomaly. Math cannot lie, although it can be manipulated.
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-17 03:58:56 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Snipped due to Bilge's troll-ish comments.
I can write down all sorts of generalizations for the area of a square,
too, but the only one that matters is the one that gets the area correct
without needing imaginary measuring devices.
Write them down then. This would allow us to look into your schezophranic
mind.
[...]
More of Bilge's troll-ish comments snipped.
And Einstein is close to be regarded as one of the dozen cranks
who is able to fudge their answers according to the observed
Mercury's orbital anomaly.
Which you've so far been unable to show.
Show what?
Don't believe in Einstein's fudging?
In a word, no.
Your understanding of GR is extremely shallow from your past troll-ish
comments. I don't expect you to tell if Einstein is fudging his answer.
And I also don't expect you to tell a difference in smell between Einstein's
droppings versus a blossoming rose.
Concentrate on the integration constant from integration of
Lagrangian Method on time.
OK. Just post a complete derivation that proves your assertion and
I'll concentrate on it.
It would be a waste of my time to do so without an audience. And I do not
find the three perenial trolls (which you are one) of this news group
possessing the capability to understand this part of mathematics in
accordance with GR. It would be nice to get some one like Gene again.
These same PhDs are
avoiding the following equation describing how an object trapped in the
curvature of spacetime according to the Schwarzschild metric. This equation
can easily be derived from the spacetime equation of a non-rotating and
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.
E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
So, in other words, if you assume mercury has no angular momentum,
mercury will plunge into the sun. Are you surprised by that? What
does that have to do with an orbiting planet?
No, you are mistaken as I expect it.
Where
** U = G M / r / c^2
** B^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / c^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2 / c^2 / (1 - 2 U)...
** m c^2 B^2 / 2 = Newtonian kinetic energy
** m c^2 U = - Newtonian potential energy
Applying the principle of conservation of energy where (dE/dt = dE/dr = 0),
there is no absolute way to avoid a null effect on Mercury's orbital
anomaly.
Obviously, since you don't have mercury in an orbit to start with.
Your conclusion is utterly incorrect. That's what you get for surounding
yourself with too much of Einstein's droppings. Not only your reasoning is
grossly affected, it seems your reading comprehension of basic mathematics
as well.
Math cannot lie, although it can be manipulated.
You've certainly demonstrated how it can be manipulated.
As the saying goes, figures dont lie, but liars figure.
Figure again.
Amen! You have been lied to for all these times. The sad thing is that you
are not capable of seeing through these lies. Well, in that case, go back
to play with Einstein's droppings. Please enjoy these delicacy to yourself.
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-18 05:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.
E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
So, in other words, if you assume mercury has no angular momentum,
mercury will plunge into the sun. Are you surprised by that? What
does that have to do with an orbiting planet?
No, you are mistaken as I expect it.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Post by Koobee Wublee
Obviously, since you don't have mercury in an orbit to start with.
Your conclusion is utterly incorrect.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Applying the Lagrangian method to the spacetime equation decorated with
Schwarzschild metric, we immediately find two conserved quantifies in
accordance to Noether's theorem. One is as you have pointed out the
conservation of angular momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it
is none other than the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system
possible. The above equation can only be derived through the equations
described by the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of
energy.
Bill Hobba
2005-09-18 08:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.
E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
So, in other words, if you assume mercury has no angular momentum,
mercury will plunge into the sun. Are you surprised by that? What
does that have to do with an orbiting planet?
No, you are mistaken as I expect it.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Post by Koobee Wublee
Obviously, since you don't have mercury in an orbit to start with.
Your conclusion is utterly incorrect.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Applying the Lagrangian method to the spacetime equation decorated with
Schwarzschild metric,
'decorated with Schwarzschild metric'????????? As Bilge said 'Lay off the
crack pipe before posting'
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation. Energy conservation is simply
the consequence of time translational symmetry which a systems lagrangian
may or may not display. I know this has been explained to you before - one
day it may sink in.
Post by Koobee Wublee
The above equation can only be derived through the equations described by
the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of energy.
Instead of posting buzzwords you obviously do not understand your time could
be better spent in studying what they mean.

Bill
Mike
2005-09-18 09:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.
E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
So, in other words, if you assume mercury has no angular momentum,
mercury will plunge into the sun. Are you surprised by that? What
does that have to do with an orbiting planet?
No, you are mistaken as I expect it.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Post by Koobee Wublee
Obviously, since you don't have mercury in an orbit to start with.
Your conclusion is utterly incorrect.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Applying the Lagrangian method to the spacetime equation decorated with
Schwarzschild metric,
'decorated with Schwarzschild metric'????????? As Bilge said 'Lay off the
crack pipe before posting'
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation. Energy conservation is simply
the consequence of time translational symmetry which a systems lagrangian
may or may not display. I know this has been explained to you before - one
day it may sink in.
Newtonian physics is based on the following:

1. Absolute space
2. Universal time
3. Three Laws of motion (and definitions, about 8 of them)

The POR as a matter of fact, does not even play in role in NM, as the
correct application of the laws of motion is always with respect to
(1), absolute space. Of course, in practice, since (1) is unobservable,
far fixed stars can be used with good accuracy results.

Apparently, you refer to some physics called Post-Newtonian or
neo-Newtonian, in which there was an effort to retain most of NM while
removing (1) and (2).

Mike
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
The above equation can only be derived through the equations described by
the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of energy.
Instead of posting buzzwords you obviously do not understand your time could
be better spent in studying what they mean.
Bill
brian a m stuckless
2005-09-19 16:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Newton PROFOUNDLY SiMPLiFiED n-bodies to jUST TWO.!!

Will RiGHT and LEFT handed TWiNs arrive, back at the
very SAME TiME, from the SAME SPACEtime trip, Bilge?
OR will ONE of them be COMPLETELY turned iNSiDE OUT?

Sincerely c,
```Brian
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
$ "Intro to Mental Masturbation"
-- No one cares what newton believed, so whatever
it is you think he believed is even less relevant.
Laurent
2005-09-18 16:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.
E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
So, in other words, if you assume mercury has no angular momentum,
mercury will plunge into the sun. Are you surprised by that? What
does that have to do with an orbiting planet?
No, you are mistaken as I expect it.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Post by Koobee Wublee
Obviously, since you don't have mercury in an orbit to start with.
Your conclusion is utterly incorrect.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Applying the Lagrangian method to the spacetime equation decorated with
Schwarzschild metric,
'decorated with Schwarzschild metric'????????? As Bilge said 'Lay off the
crack pipe before posting'
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation. Energy conservation is simply
the consequence of time translational symmetry which a systems lagrangian
may or may not display. I know this has been explained to you before - one
day it may sink in.
Post by Koobee Wublee
The above equation can only be derived through the equations described by
the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of energy.
Instead of posting buzzwords you obviously do not understand your time could
be better spent in studying what they mean.
Bill
Bill, you are too shallow in your observations.

"The Schrodinger wave does not act like, for example, a water wave on a floating object to push the particle mechanically with a force proportional to its intensity. Rather, a better analogy would be to a ship on automatic pilot guided by radar waves. The ship with its automatic pilot is a self-active system, but the form of its activity is determined by the information content concerning its environment carried by the radar waves. This latter is independent of the intensity of these waves (as long as they can be received by the equipment available) but depends only on their form, which in turn reflects the form of the environment.

To achieve this, however, we had to bring in the notion that the Schrodinger wave does not act mechanically on the particle, but rather, that the particle, as a self-active system, responds to something analogous to information about its entire context that is contained in the Schrodinger wave. This gives us some insight into the wholeness that is, as we have seen, essential to Bohr's view. For now, it is clear that we cannot always isolate the electron from distant features of its relevant environment, if we want to understand the details of how it moves even in what would otherwise be free space. But even more important for our purposes here is that by developing an intuitive model for how something analogous to information comes in at the most fundamental level of physics known to us, we are beginning to get a feeling for how mind and matter may ultimately not be nearly so different as they may seem to be at first sight.

One may quite generally see the essential relationship of information and its meaning with the aid of the notion of energy. That is to say, information is a form which literally "informs" (i.e., forms from within) an "unformed" energy to give rise to a corresponding determinate activity. Consider, for example, a radio wave, on which information is carried as a form. This wave has a certain small energy, but it is not the energy of the wave that comes out of the loud speaker. Rather, the form of the radio wave is impressed, through a vacuum tube or a transistor, on the (relatively) unformed electrical energy acting in the radio. Similarly, the form in the state of the silicon chips enters into the energy in the computer, to give shape to a corresponding activity. Likewise, in our subjective experience, when we see a printed page, for example, the form of the letters gives rise in our nervous and physical energy to a whole set of virtual activites (e.g., in the imagination), some of which may be further actualized according to context and circumstance.

If we now return to the causal interpretation of the quantum theory, it is clear that the "dance" of the electrons may similarly be regarded as the objective meaning of the information content in the "score" of the wave function. As in the previous examples, the wavefunction contains information implying a vast range of potential or virtual activities. In this case, these will be actualized by entering into the energy of the self-active particles, in ways that depend on the initial configuration of the whole system. The notion of participation, guided by a common "pool" of information and its meaning, is thus given an objective significance. In this way, we see that, even at the most fundamental levels of physical law known at present, the mechanical notion of an interactive universe is seen to be inadequate. It is in need of replacement by the notion of an objectively participative universe that includes our own participation as a special case." -- David Bohm
Bill Hobba
2005-09-19 21:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Koobee Wublee
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.
E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
So, in other words, if you assume mercury has no angular momentum,
mercury will plunge into the sun. Are you surprised by that? What
does that have to do with an orbiting planet?
No, you are mistaken as I expect it.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Post by Koobee Wublee
Obviously, since you don't have mercury in an orbit to start with.
Your conclusion is utterly incorrect.
Then where is the angular momentum?
Applying the Lagrangian method to the spacetime equation decorated with
Schwarzschild metric,
'decorated with Schwarzschild metric'????????? As Bilge said 'Lay off the
crack pipe before posting'
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation. Energy conservation is simply
the consequence of time translational symmetry which a systems lagrangian
may or may not display. I know this has been explained to you before - one
day it may sink in.
Post by Koobee Wublee
The above equation can only be derived through the equations described by
the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of energy.
Instead of posting buzzwords you obviously do not understand your time could
be better spent in studying what they mean.
Bill
Laurent
Bill, you are too shallow in your observations.

And your posts have not inspired confidence in the validity of your
'observations'

Laurent
"The Schrodinger wave does not act like, for example, a water wave on a
floating object to push the particle mechanically with a force proportional
to its intensity. Rather, a better analogy'

It would be better if you did not use analogies at all. It is a probability
amplitude with the exact meaning of the term detailed in the theory.

Rest snipped.

Bill
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-19 07:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Applying the Lagrangian method to the spacetime equation decorated with
Schwarzschild metric,
'decorated with Schwarzschild metric'????????? As Bilge said 'Lay off the
crack pipe before posting'
What is a crak pipe?
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation.
Wrong! You are the one who needs to stop taking these crack weeds.
Post by Bill Hobba
Energy conservation is simply the consequence of time translational
symmetry which a systems lagrangian may or may not display.
Wrong, again! Apparently, you do not understand Noether's theorem
despite... [to be continued in the next paragraph of comments]
Post by Bill Hobba
I know this has been explained to you before - one day it may sink in.
[continued from the previous paragraph of comments]... You have on numberous
occasions posted the relevant articles about this theorem.
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
The above equation can only be derived through the equations described by
the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of energy.
Instead of posting buzzwords you obviously do not understand your time
could be better spent in studying what they mean.
Oh, my! You don't get the sarcasm. Since GR comes with so many buzzwords,
I am just trying to outdo GR. However, all my buzzwords are actually backed
up with sound and correct mathematical derivations. Traits which GR cannot
claim so on all occasions.
Bill Hobba
2005-09-19 21:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Applying the Lagrangian method to the spacetime equation decorated with
Schwarzschild metric,
'decorated with Schwarzschild metric'????????? As Bilge said 'Lay off
the crack pipe before posting'
What is a crak pipe?
Beats me - Bilge was referring to a crack pipe.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation.
Wrong! You are the one who needs to stop taking these crack weeds.
A perusal of a proper text such as Landau - Mechanics will show otherwise.
Do you really think your tactic of confidently asserting what is well known
to be false fools anyone? Considering how weeded you are to it the answer
is probably obvious. To those reading this who have not come across this
poster before take a look at his entries in Dirks immortal fumbles:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html

Rest is same vein mercifully snipped.

Bill
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-20 07:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation.
Wrong! You are the one who needs to stop taking these crack weeds.
A perusal of a proper text such as Landau - Mechanics will show otherwise.
I don't find Landau referencing to these crack weeds.
Post by Bill Hobba
Do you really think your tactic of confidently asserting what is well
known to be false fools anyone? Considering how weeded you are to it the
answer is probably obvious. To those reading this who have not come
across this poster before take a look at his entries in Dirks immortal
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
The nicompoop, moortel, after getting a taste of SR has not shown any
advancement into the learning of GR. It cannot even tell a true crank post
from another. With the frequency of my posts, I should be ranked as the top
fumble in his list, and yet I am not. Does the turd even know what a fumble
is in American football? A fumble does not necessarily mean a turn-over.
In another words, a turn-over is a bad news for the team on the offense, but
a fumble may not result in a bad news.
Post by Bill Hobba
Rest is same vein mercifully snipped.
That is because you don't understand any of it. You have consistently
posted something which you do not even understand for quite some time. Not
to degrade any librarian in general, it is very much expected as a
bookkeeper to do so.
Bill Hobba
2005-09-20 22:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to
Noether's theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of
angular momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none
other than the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system
possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation.
Wrong! You are the one who needs to stop taking these crack weeds.
A perusal of a proper text such as Landau - Mechanics will show otherwise.
I don't find Landau referencing to these crack weeds.
Post by Bill Hobba
Do you really think your tactic of confidently asserting what is well
known to be false fools anyone? Considering how weeded you are to it the
answer is probably obvious. To those reading this who have not come
across this poster before take a look at his entries in Dirks immortal
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
The nicompoop, moortel, after getting a taste of SR has not shown any
advancement into the learning of GR. It cannot even tell a true crank
post from another. With the frequency of my posts, I should be ranked as
the top fumble in his list, and yet I am not. Does the turd even know
what a fumble is in American football? A fumble does not necessarily mean
a turn-over. In another words, a turn-over is a bad news for the team on
the offense, but a fumble may not result in a bad news.
Post by Bill Hobba
Rest is same vein mercifully snipped.
That is because you don't understand any of it.
You claim, amongst other things, energy conservation is a fundamental axiom
of mechanics, I claim it is not citing Noethers theorem and Landau -
Mechanics. A simple perusal of the cited reference will prove me right or
wrong. But instead of that you post I do not undnderstnat it. As Mati
says - 'Still, I would recommend working on some new material, this is
getting stale.'

Bill
Post by Koobee Wublee
You have consistently posted something which you do not even understand
for quite some time. Not to degrade any librarian in general, it is very
much expected as a bookkeeper to do so.
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-22 02:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
You claim, amongst other things, energy conservation is a fundamental
axiom of mechanics,
Your claim of my claim is extremely faulty in fact.
Post by Bill Hobba
I claim it is not citing Noethers theorem and Landau - Mechanics. A
simple perusal of the cited reference will prove me right or wrong. But
instead of that you post I do not undnderstnat it.
As usual, this is the mumbling of some one who claims to be able to think
abstractly by closing his eyes thus discard all observations.
Post by Bill Hobba
As Mati says - 'Still, I would recommend working on some new material,
this is getting stale.'
It sounds like an old timer complaining about the achievement of his career.
Dirk Van de moortel
2005-09-21 20:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation.
Wrong! You are the one who needs to stop taking these crack weeds.
A perusal of a proper text such as Landau - Mechanics will show otherwise.
I don't find Landau referencing to these crack weeds.
Post by Bill Hobba
Do you really think your tactic of confidently asserting what is well
known to be false fools anyone? Considering how weeded you are to it the
answer is probably obvious. To those reading this who have not come
across this poster before take a look at his entries in Dirks immortal
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
The nicompoop, moortel, after getting a taste of SR has not shown any
advancement into the learning of GR. It cannot even tell a true crank post
from another. With the frequency of my posts, I should be ranked as the top
fumble in his list, and yet I am not.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AerospaceRelativity.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewPotential.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WhatWrong.html

Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=bdq09.28353$***@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=V1r09.661180$***@sccrnsc02
| "Scholarly Fungi" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:bdq09.28353$***@news2.west.cox.net...
| > It is also unfortunate that most of the folks blindly embracing this
| > holohaux come from the white supremacists. I don't see what this would gain
| > for them other than trying to antagonize the Jews. However, this is
| > history. When I was in my early high school years, I independently came up
| > with what Butz was saying without knowing his existence. Hey, I am very
| > proud of my humble analytical skills.


Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=NnI09.31007$***@news2.west.cox.net
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=***@posting.google.com
| "Scholarly Fungi" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:<NnI09.31007$***@news2.west.cox.net>...
| > All history is written upon congruency among the historians but except one.
| > The Holocaust was born in the court rooms of Nueremberg. It is a complete
| > hoax.
| >
| > I did not know of Arthur Butz, but I independently came up with that
| > hypothesis noticing the tremendous amount of inconsistencies while studying
| > holohoax in high school.


Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=fytJa.78487%24%2542.6441%40fed1read06
But we still have the reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=XvKJa.100908$***@fed1read05
| "Australopithecus Afarensis" <***@olduvaigorge.net> wrote in message
| news:fytJa.78487$%***@fed1read06...
| > Thanks for posting all that and your own comments at the end. There are so
| > many lies after lies conjured up against the Nazis. I guess I'd better read
| > "Mein Kampf" to get it from the horse's mouth. It will be on my
| > things-to-do list for the near future.


Original, but removed from archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=uMeDa.59118%24%2542.39687%40fed1read06
Reply:
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?&threadm=***@4ax.com
| On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:42:04 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
| <***@olduvaigorge.net> wrote:
|
| >Thanks for answering these questions fair and square.
| >
| >Although I don't speak for all other Australopithecine, I certainly want to
| >be as less nationalistic as possible. I am an individual just trying to
| >learn as much as I can before my short life expires on this earth.
| >
| >OK, now the media and "media"-controlled educational history have painted
| >the Nazis as the most fiendish group of people ever lived through out the
| >entire history of mankind. When I was growing up, I was constantly reminded
| >that the Nazis were so genocidal, they will kill any non-Germans in a heart
| >beat. After getting constantly bombarded with Nazi atrocities, I was very
| >much like the rest. Well, until one clip of film showing mountains of hair
| >inside a giant oven, the purpose was to show how many people murdered and
| >cremated. As a young scientist-to-be, it just hit me that the whole sh*t
| >was a lie. As far as I knew, the human hair would burn first. After
| >meticulous research and reasoning, I have concluded the WWII Nazis were no
| >more atrocious than any other governments in the 20th century or beyond.
| >Many of these information mostly came out after the explosion of the
| >internet where all skeletons in the closets finally have a chance to tell
| >their side of the story. Now, what is your plan to the public to shed these
| >negative sentiments accused against your political group?
| >
m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
2005-09-20 07:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bill Hobba
Post by Koobee Wublee
we immediately find two conserved quantifies in accordance to Noether's
theorem. One is as you have pointed out the conservation of angular
momentum, and the other has eluded the world, but it is none other than
the conservation of energy which makes Newtonian system possible.
Newtonian physics is based on the PLA, the POR and the Galilean
transformations - not energy conservation.
Wrong! You are the one who needs to stop taking these crack weeds.
A perusal of a proper text such as Landau - Mechanics will show otherwise.
I don't find Landau referencing to these crack weeds.
Post by Bill Hobba
Do you really think your tactic of confidently asserting what is well
known to be false fools anyone? Considering how weeded you are to it the
answer is probably obvious. To those reading this who have not come
across this poster before take a look at his entries in Dirks immortal
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
The nicompoop, moortel, after getting a taste of SR has not shown any
advancement into the learning of GR. It cannot even tell a true crank post
from another. With the frequency of my posts, I should be ranked as the top
fumble in his list, and yet I am not. Does the turd even know what a fumble
is in American football? A fumble does not necessarily mean a turn-over.
In another words, a turn-over is a bad news for the team on the offense, but
a fumble may not result in a bad news.
Post by Bill Hobba
Rest is same vein mercifully snipped.
That is because you don't understand any of it. You have consistently
posted something which you do not even understand for quite some time. Not
to degrade any librarian in general, it is very much expected as a
bookkeeper to do so.
Well, you do have some entertainment value. Not a lot but hey, we get
what we pay for, right? Still, I would recommend working on some new
material, this is getting stale.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-20 07:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Post by Koobee Wublee
The nicompoop, moortel, after getting a taste of SR has not shown any
advancement into the learning of GR. It cannot even tell a true crank post
from another. With the frequency of my posts, I should be ranked as the top
fumble in his list, and yet I am not. Does the turd even know what a fumble
is in American football? A fumble does not necessarily mean a turn-over.
In another words, a turn-over is a bad news for the team on the offense, but
a fumble may not result in a bad news.
Post by Bill Hobba
Rest is same vein mercifully snipped.
That is because you don't understand any of it. You have consistently
posted something which you do not even understand for quite some time.
Not
to degrade any librarian in general, it is very much expected as a
bookkeeper to do so.
Well, you do have some entertainment value. Not a lot but hey, we get
what we pay for, right? Still, I would recommend working on some new
material, this is getting stale.
I don't know what you mean.

But, hey to you too, after you come to the United States and especially into
the Chicago area, have cheered for the Chicago Bears? After 1,985, do you
think the Bears would ever win another superbowl in your life time, old
timer?
Bilge
2005-09-20 13:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Post by Koobee Wublee
That is because you don't understand any of it. You have consistently
posted something which you do not even understand for quite some time. Not
to degrade any librarian in general, it is very much expected as a
bookkeeper to do so.
Well, you do have some entertainment value. Not a lot but hey, we get
what we pay for, right? Still, I would recommend working on some new
material, this is getting stale.
Of course, watching mud dry has entertainment value if the
only alternatives are less entertaining. We can flip a coin
here. heads/mud drying : tails/koobee noclooly. Call it.
bz
2005-09-20 15:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Of course, watching mud dry has entertainment value if the
only alternatives are less entertaining. We can flip a coin
here. heads/mud drying : tails/koobee noclooly. Call it.
Watching muck drying in New Orleans.
--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+***@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
2005-09-20 15:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by m***@cars3.uchicago.edu
Post by Koobee Wublee
That is because you don't understand any of it. You have consistently
posted something which you do not even understand for quite some time. Not
to degrade any librarian in general, it is very much expected as a
bookkeeper to do so.
Well, you do have some entertainment value. Not a lot but hey, we get
what we pay for, right? Still, I would recommend working on some new
material, this is getting stale.
Of course, watching mud dry has entertainment value if the
only alternatives are less entertaining.
An apt characterizaton of this ng.
Post by Bilge
We can flip a coin
here. heads/mud drying : tails/koobee noclooly. Call it.
A close call, very close call. Well, I'll put 2 bucks on mud.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
***@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-19 07:51:02 UTC
Permalink
[...]
So, where's the angular momentum?
[...]
You have no idea what you are talking about. Lay off the crack pipe.
Bilge tries to redirect follow-up postings to other newsgroup. You are the
biggest clown always raising the most irrelevant topics.

Bilge's and moortel's postings belong in the cyberspace equivalence of
sewage.
brian a m stuckless
2005-09-19 13:00:07 UTC
Permalink
ANGULAR momentum pA = mass*radius*velocity:
WHERE is the QUANTiTY for a CENTRAL MASS.?!
OBViOUSLY, pA is > QUANTiTATiVELY free <.!!
(As far as any CENTRAL mass is concerned.)!
Please EXPLAiN this CONTRADiCTiON, Bilge.!!
Sincerely,
```Brian
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
[...]
So, where's the angular momentum?
[...]
You have no idea what you are talking about. Lay off the crack pipe.
Bilge tries to redirect follow-up postings to other newsgroup.
Post your crap to the appropriate newsgroup instead of
crossposting it to a zillion irrelevant newsgroups and
it wont have followups set to the appropriate newsgroup.
You are the biggest clown always raising the most irrelevant topics.
So, where's the angular momentum? Thanks for demonstrating
that a planet falls into the sun if its trajectory is toward
the center of the sun. That's a big breakthrough...
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-20 04:03:41 UTC
Permalink
So, where's the angular momentum? Thanks for demonstrating
that a planet falls into the sun if its trajectory is toward
the center of the sun. That's a big breakthrough...
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to post the conservation of angular momentum
under the concept of General Relativity with Schwarzschild metric after
posting the observed energy of an object trapped in such curvature of
spacetime. After this, all diligent students of GR should be able to
rederive Mercury's orbital anomaly and find it not what it is claimed to be.

Recall the good old spacetime equation with Schwarzschild metric that has
the test object (such as the Mercury) in motion confined to the equatorial
plane of the central mass (such as the sun).

ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dH^2

Where

** U = G M / r / c^2
** All symbols self explanatory

Applying the Lagrangian method with dt as the quantity to be minimized, we
get the following very simple equations that are in accordance to the
Noether's theorem where we know that are 2 conserved quantities.

** d[2 (ds/dt)/c^2 / (1 - 2 U)]/dt = 0
** d[2 r^2 (dH/dt)/c^2 / (1 - 2 U)]/dt = 0

Integrating both equations above, we arrive at the following equations where
one describes the conservation of observed energy and the other one the
conservation of angular momentum.

** E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2), energy
** L = r^2 (dH/dt) / (1 - 2 U), angular momentum

Where

** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)

Einstein and his followers fudged E and L where both are integration
constants to arrive at Mercury's orbital anomaly. Since the anomaly occurs
at the 2nd order of sqrt(1 - 2 U), one must take the derivatives instead.
So, even under GR with Schwarzschild metric, we have

** dE/dt = dE/dr = 0, conservation of observed energy
** dL/dt = 0, conservation of angular momentum

After whole bunch of very mechanical and algebraic methodology, we get

** B^2 ~= U (1 + 0 U + ...)

Where there appears to be no anomaly under the concept of GR with
Schwarzschild metric

The observation, of course, is

** B^2 ~= U (1 + 3 U + ...)
Bilge
2005-09-20 13:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
So, where's the angular momentum? Thanks for demonstrating
that a planet falls into the sun if its trajectory is toward
the center of the sun. That's a big breakthrough...
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to post the conservation of angular momentum
under the concept of General Relativity with Schwarzschild metric after
posting the observed energy of an object trapped in such curvature of
spacetime. After this, all diligent students of GR should be able to
rederive Mercury's orbital anomaly and find it not what it is claimed to be.
Recall the good old spacetime equation with Schwarzschild metric that has
the test object (such as the Mercury) in motion confined to the equatorial
plane of the central mass (such as the sun).
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dH^2
Where
** U = G M / r / c^2
** All symbols self explanatory
Applying the Lagrangian method with dt as the quantity to be minimized,
Where's your lagrangian density?
Post by Koobee Wublee
we get the following very simple equations that are in accordance to the
Noether's theorem where we know that are 2 conserved quantities.
** d[2 (ds/dt)/c^2 / (1 - 2 U)]/dt = 0
** d[2 r^2 (dH/dt)/c^2 / (1 - 2 U)]/dt = 0
Integrating both equations above, we arrive at the following equations where
one describes the conservation of observed energy and the other one the
conservation of angular momentum.
** E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2), energy
** L = r^2 (dH/dt) / (1 - 2 U), angular momentum
So, then according to you, the equivalent newtonian values
are:

E = (1/2)m(dr/dt)^2 - GMm/r

L = r x p
Post by Koobee Wublee
Where
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)
Einstein and his followers fudged E and L where both are integration
constants to arrive at Mercury's orbital anomaly. Since the anomaly occurs
at the 2nd order of sqrt(1 - 2 U), one must take the derivatives instead.
So, even under GR with Schwarzschild metric, we have
** dE/dt = dE/dr = 0, conservation of observed energy
** dL/dt = 0, conservation of angular momentum
Congratulations - your same argument ``proves'' that newtonian
gravity doesn't admit orbiting planets.

U = -GMm/r E = T + U = p^2/2m - GMm/r = (m/2)[(v^2 - 2GM/r]

dE/dt = dE/dr = 0

dE/dr = (m/2)[2v.dv/dr + 2GM/r^2] = 0

v dv = -GMdr/r^2 => v^2 = 2GM/r

dE/dt = (dE/dr)(dr/dt) = 0

Which is the escape velocity.

Your argument applied to the angular momentum, gives:

dL/dt = (d/dt) (r x p)

Since p is in the radial direction (by the same argument you used for
the perihelion shift of mercury), L = 0. Since dL/dt = 0, your argument
``proves'' that planets can't orbit anything in newtonian gravity.
All they can do is fall into the sun.

I suggest that you try rebooting your brain and write the
full expression for the enery. It has a term proportional to L^2.
I also suggest that you stop referring to noether's theorem
until you know what it means and how to use it to do physics.

For example, where are your killing fields?
Post by Koobee Wublee
After whole bunch of very mechanical and algebraic methodology, we get
Try injecting the physics into the ``methodology.''
Post by Koobee Wublee
** B^2 ~= U (1 + 0 U + ...)
Where there appears to be no anomaly under the concept of GR with
Schwarzschild metric
The observation, of course, is
** B^2 ~= U (1 + 3 U + ...)
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-20 20:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
So, where's the angular momentum? Thanks for demonstrating
that a planet falls into the sun if its trajectory is toward
the center of the sun. That's a big breakthrough...
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to post the conservation of angular momentum
under the concept of General Relativity with Schwarzschild metric after
posting the observed energy of an object trapped in such curvature of
spacetime. After this, all diligent students of GR should be able to
rederive Mercury's orbital anomaly and find it not what it is claimed to be.
Recall the good old spacetime equation with Schwarzschild metric that has
the test object (such as the Mercury) in motion confined to the equatorial
plane of the central mass (such as the sun).
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 U) - r^2 dH^2
Where
** U = G M / r / c^2
** All symbols self explanatory
Applying the Lagrangian method with dt as the quantity to be minimized,
Where's your lagrangian density?
The Lagrangian is obtained by divided both side of the spacetime equation
above with the following.

c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2

And then, arrange the same equation to be as follows.

(ds/dt)^2/c^2 / (1 - 2 U) + (dr/dt)^2/c^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2/c^2
/ (1 - 2 U) = 1

The quantity above is the Lagrangian where it satisfies

integral[t0, t1](Lagrangian dt) = constant, where t0 != t1
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
we get the following very simple equations that are in accordance to the
Noether's theorem where we know that are 2 conserved quantities.
** d[2 (ds/dt)/c^2 / (1 - 2 U)]/dt = 0
** d[2 r^2 (dH/dt)/c^2 / (1 - 2 U)]/dt = 0
Integrating both equations above, we arrive at the following equations where
one describes the conservation of observed energy and the other one the
conservation of angular momentum.
** E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2), energy
** L = r^2 (dH/dt) / (1 - 2 U), angular momentum
So, then according to you, the equivalent newtonian values
E = (1/2)m(dr/dt)^2 - GMm/r
L = r x p
Wrong. The equations I posted above describe motions in two dimensions.
Yours only does one.

The correct Newtonian limits are

** E / m = ((dr/dt)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2) / 2 - G M / r
** L / m = r^2 (dH/dt)
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
Where
** B^2 c^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2 / (1 - 2 U)
Einstein and his followers fudged E and L where both are integration
constants to arrive at Mercury's orbital anomaly. Since the anomaly occurs
at the 2nd order of sqrt(1 - 2 U), one must take the derivatives instead.
So, even under GR with Schwarzschild metric, we have
** dE/dt = dE/dr = 0, conservation of observed energy
** dL/dt = 0, conservation of angular momentum
Congratulations - your same argument ``proves'' that newtonian
gravity doesn't admit orbiting planets.
U = -GMm/r E = T + U = p^2/2m - GMm/r = (m/2)[(v^2 - 2GM/r]
dE/dt = dE/dr = 0
dE/dr = (m/2)[2v.dv/dr + 2GM/r^2] = 0
v dv = -GMdr/r^2 => v^2 = 2GM/r
dE/dt = (dE/dr)(dr/dt) = 0
Which is the escape velocity.
Wrong again. The conservaton under the concept of Newtonian system is

dE/dt = dE/dr = 0

Which give the following equation.

d^2r/dt^2 + r (dH/dt)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt) (d^2H/dr/dt) + G M / r^2 = 0
Post by Bilge
dL/dt = (d/dt) (r x p)
Since p is in the radial direction (by the same argument you used for
the perihelion shift of mercury), L = 0. Since dL/dt = 0, your argument
``proves'' that planets can't orbit anything in newtonian gravity.
All they can do is fall into the sun.
I suggest that you try rebooting your brain and write the
full expression for the enery. It has a term proportional to L^2.
I also suggest that you stop referring to noether's theorem
until you know what it means and how to use it to do physics.
You are on a roll again. Three straight wrong answers.

The conservation of angular momentum.

dL/dt = dL/dr = 0

Gives the following.

2 r (dH/dt) + r^2 (d^2H/dr/dt) = 0

Which means

r (d^2H/dr/dt) = - 2 (dH/dt)
Post by Bilge
For example, where are your killing fields?
Post by Koobee Wublee
After whole bunch of very mechanical and algebraic methodology, we get
Try injecting the physics into the ``methodology.''
Yes, combining the conservation of energy and momentum gives

d^2r/dt^2 - r (dH/dt)^2 = - G M / r^2

If the planet is in a circular orbit around the sun, we have

** d^2r/dt^2 = 0
** r^2 (dH/dt)^2 = orbital speed

Thus, we get

r^2 (dH/dt)^2 = G M / r

This is exactly what we observe as Newton described it many centuries ago.
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
** B^2 ~= U (1 + 0 U + ...)
Where there appears to be no anomaly under the concept of GR with
Schwarzschild metric
The observation, of course, is
** B^2 ~= U (1 + 3 U + ...)
Now, after understanding the Newtonian approach, you should be able to apply
this to GR. After all, both Newtonain and GR share the same mathematical
methods.
Bilge
2005-09-21 09:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bilge
Where's your lagrangian density?
The Lagrangian is obtained by divided both side of the spacetime equation
above with the following.
c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2
I have no idea what ``spacetime equation'' means. Ive told you
this before. Use terminology that is standard. That is obviously
not a lagrangian, since a lagrangian doesn't contain things like
dt^2. The lagrangian also has to give things like the momentum:

p = dL/dx_dot

p = (d/dr_dot)(1 - 2Gm/r) = 0

The lagrangian is a function of the coordinates and the first derivatives
of the coordinates.

[...]
Post by Koobee Wublee
You are on a roll again. Three straight wrong answers.
Come back when you know wht you're doing.
d***@hotmail.com
2005-09-21 11:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Where's your lagrangian density?
Over behind the barn by the salt lick in La Grange. Its value is 129.6
lagrangians per cc. Any other questions?
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-22 02:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lagrangian is obtained by divided both side of the spacetime equation
above with the following.
c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2
I have no idea what ``spacetime equation'' means. Ive told you
this before. Use terminology that is standard. That is obviously
not a lagrangian, since a lagrangian doesn't contain things like
dt^2.
This Lagrangian does not contain dt^2.
Post by Bilge
p = dL/dx_dot
p = (d/dr_dot)(1 - 2Gm/r) = 0
The Lagrangian you refer to only works for classical Newtonian system. That
Lagrangian is stated as it is rather than derived.
Post by Bilge
The lagrangian is a function of the coordinates and the first derivatives
of the coordinates.
[...]
Post by Koobee Wublee
You are on a roll again. Three straight wrong answers.
Come back when you know wht you're doing.
I can bet my life on it that you do not understand the Lagrangian method.
With four wrong answers, you are fired, Troll!
Bilge
2005-09-22 16:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lagrangian is obtained by divided both side of the spacetime equation
above with the following.
c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2
I have no idea what ``spacetime equation'' means. Ive told you
this before. Use terminology that is standard. That is obviously
not a lagrangian, since a lagrangian doesn't contain things like
dt^2.
This Lagrangian does not contain dt^2.
Then you agree that what you write is wrong.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bilge
p = dL/dx_dot
p = (d/dr_dot)(1 - 2Gm/r) = 0
The Lagrangian you refer to only works for classical Newtonian system. That
Lagrangian is stated as it is rather than derived.
Wrong. I'd tell you not to be an idiot, but it's too late.
You've devoted your life to being an idiot.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bilge
The lagrangian is a function of the coordinates and the first derivatives
of the coordinates.
[...]
Post by Koobee Wublee
You are on a roll again. Three straight wrong answers.
Come back when you know wht you're doing.
I can bet my life on it that you do not understand the Lagrangian method.
If you reply, then I'll know you welshed on your bet.
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-23 05:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lagrangian is obtained by divided both side of the spacetime equation
above with the following.
c^2 (1 - 2 U) dt^2
I have no idea what ``spacetime equation'' means. Ive told you
this before. Use terminology that is standard. That is obviously
not a lagrangian, since a lagrangian doesn't contain things like
dt^2.
This Lagrangian does not contain dt^2.
Then you agree that what you write is wrong.
No, your are wrong again. What I wrote about the Lagrangian is correct, and
it does not contain dt^2.
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Bilge
p = dL/dx_dot
p = (d/dr_dot)(1 - 2Gm/r) = 0
The Lagrangian you refer to only works for classical Newtonian system.
That
Lagrangian is stated as it is rather than derived.
Wrong. I'd tell you not to be an idiot, but it's too late.
You've devoted your life to being an idiot.
According to the Fermat-Lagrange method to minimize an event described by
the integral of this Lagrangian, the minimum action of the event that occurs
would satisfy the resulted Euler-Lagrange equation for each state variable
involved. So, prove to me this Lagragian IN GENERAL results in the observed
momentum if the proper derivative is taken.
Bilge
2005-09-24 21:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
According to the Fermat-Lagrange method to minimize an event described by
the integral of this Lagrangian, the minimum action of the event that occurs
would satisfy the resulted Euler-Lagrange equation for each state variable
involved.
The lagrangian is a function of the coordinates and first derivatives.
It doesm't give you the energy. You have to derive the hamiltonian
to get the energy. The energy _is_ the hamiltonian.
Post by Koobee Wublee
So, prove to me this Lagragian IN GENERAL results in the observed
momentum if the proper derivative is taken.
Your lagrangian is bogus, so it wont result in anything.
brian a m stuckless
2005-09-25 00:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
According to the Fermat-Lagrange method to minimize an event described by
the integral of this Lagrangian, the minimum action of the event that occurs
would satisfy the resulted Euler-Lagrange equation for each state variable
involved.
The lagrangian is a function of the coordinates and first derivatives.
It doesm't give you the energy.
LaGrangian GiVEs you LaGrangian ENERGY, Bilge.


You have to derive the hamiltonian
Post by Bilge
to get the energy. The energy _is_ the hamiltonian.
Post by Koobee Wublee
So, prove to me this Lagragian IN GENERAL results in the observed
momentum if the proper derivative is taken.
Your lagrangian is bogus, so it wont result in anything.
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-25 03:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
According to the Fermat-Lagrange method to minimize an event described by
the integral of this Lagrangian, the minimum action of the event that occurs
would satisfy the resulted Euler-Lagrange equation for each state variable
involved.
The lagrangian is a function of the coordinates and first derivatives.
It doesm't give you the energy. You have to derive the hamiltonian
to get the energy. The energy _is_ the hamiltonian.
I never claimed Lagrangian gives energy.
Post by Bilge
Post by Koobee Wublee
So, prove to me this Lagragian IN GENERAL results in the observed
momentum if the proper derivative is taken.
Your lagrangian is bogus, so it wont result in anything.
Giving up redirecting posts, troll?
Peter M. Brown
2005-09-25 04:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
The energy _is_ the hamiltonian.
Nope. Not always.

Pmb

Laurent
2005-09-17 12:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Sam Wormley
What is important is the empirical results of observation and
experiment. Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished.
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
The only tangible argument describing SR is none other than the set of good
old Lorentz Transforms. As it is presented by Einstein and his
contemporaries such as Lorentz and Lorentz, it does have a great tendancy to
mislead anyone even ones with PhDs to turn their backs on the Aethers. The
whole misunderstanding should rectify itself if one can present the Lorentz
Transforms not just dependent on relative speeds of the observing and the
observed frames but also these frames' observed values of the speed of light
in vacuum. With one able to describe how two frames with drastically
different values of the speeds of light in vacuum able to observe one
another, there is just no morre excuse to turn your back on the Aether. It
must exist where each associated Aether particle must be massless and
chargeless and spinless. These traits are not the easiest to allow a
definite detectection even with modern advancement in technology.
The Lorentz Transforms killed the Aether. Despite all the great minds
including Einstein who was created to be one by the media, the transforms
are not complete. We can write down the more generalized version of them to
allow all sorts of the values of the speed of light in vacuum to observe and
be observed by anyone. Since GR can only be correct if there is no Aether,
it is in jeopody of being regarded as a non-crank theory. And Einstein is
close to be regarded as one of the dozen cranks who is able to fudge their
answers according to the observed Mercury's orbital anomaly.
Don't believe in Einstein's fudging? Concentrate on the integration
constant from integration of Lagrangian Method on time. These same PhDs are
avoiding the following equation describing how an object trapped in the
curvature of spacetime according to the Schwarzschild metric. This equation
can easily be derived from the spacetime equation of a non-rotating and
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.
E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
Where
** U = G M / r / c^2
** B^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / c^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2 / c^2 / (1 - 2 U)...
** m c^2 B^2 / 2 = Newtonian kinetic energy
** m c^2 U = - Newtonian potential energy
Applying the principle of conservation of energy where (dE/dt = dE/dr = 0),
there is no absolute way to avoid a null effect on Mercury's orbital
anomaly. Math cannot lie, although it can be manipulated.
You say: "Since GR can only be correct if there is no Aether"

But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free. If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.

As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free. The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a master mathematician to figure that out, right?

--
Laurent
Sam Wormley
2005-09-17 12:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free. If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free. The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein

See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory
of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. 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.

The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory
have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
Paul Stowe
2005-09-17 14:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...

Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,

2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
See:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717031

That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.
Post by Sam Wormley
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
GR) Einstein wrote:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

" ...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 wonld 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. ..."

Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
the "Handbook of Physics" clearly & unambigiously states:

"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."

Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.

Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.

Paul Stowe
shevek
2005-09-17 17:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
Well put Paul! Thank you.

Einstein certainly advanced our knowledge of the aether.

However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one that I
understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?

Cheers -
Post by Paul Stowe
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
Paul Stowe
Sam Wormley
2005-09-18 02:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by shevek
However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one that I
understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?
Momentum is frame dependent... it is relative and observer dependent.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Momentum.html
brian a m stuckless
2005-09-18 14:13:00 UTC
Permalink
The GUESS MOMENTUM frame of reference shows ..BOTH vector ENDs.!!
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o PROjECTiON
A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C
o o o
o o o
o o
ANY train-TRACK ..or PATH
[CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH].!!
Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!!

GUESS momentum FRAME of REFERENCE for Heisenberg Uncertainty:
A. Planck UNcertainty:
[i CANNOT measure ANY position MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2].

B. Heisenberg UNcertainty:
[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE].

Hope this HELPs you ((focus)) c,
```Brian
Post by Sam Wormley
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one
that I understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?
Momentum is frame dependent... it is relative and observer dependent.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Momentum.html >.
s***@yahoo.com
2005-09-18 16:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by brian a m stuckless
The GUESS MOMENTUM frame of reference shows ..BOTH vector ENDs.!!
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o PROjECTiON
A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C
o o o
o o o
o o
ANY train-TRACK ..or PATH
[CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH].!!
Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!!
You need two points to define a vector. It´s not just two numbers but
also an origin.. but some give these objects godlike status including
Capital Letters and a geometric signifigance above and beyond the
coordinates.

cos^2+sin^2=-e^(ipi)
Post by brian a m stuckless
[i CANNOT measure ANY position MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2].
[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE].
Hope this HELPs you ((focus)) c,
```Brian
Sorry, not so much..

But perhaps it helps me unfocus, equally important sometime.
Post by brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
brian a m stuckless
2005-09-19 18:29:25 UTC
Permalink
The GUESS momentum FRAME of REFERENCE with VECTOR A>B.!!
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o PROjECTiON
A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C
o o o
o o o
o o
ANY train-TRACK ..or PATH
[CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH].!!
Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.!!
Post by s***@yahoo.com
You need two points to define a vector. It´s not just two
numbers but also an origin..
[```SNiP```]
[Look UP ^. See 2 points A & B ..with vector origin A.]
Post by s***@yahoo.com
cos^2+sin^2=-e^(ipi)
[Look UP ^. SHOW us where DRAWiNG is WRONG.]
[The EQUATiON shown CANNOT indicate a PATH.]
[MOST vectors have jUST 2 POiNTs on a PATH.]
[Almost ALL of ANY vector is OFF that PATH.]

A. Planck UNcertainty:
[i CANNOT measure ANY position MORE ACCURATE than +or- lp/2].

B. Heisenberg UNcertainty:
[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE].
[i CANNOT ((focus)DOUBLE(focus)) with but a ((SiNGLE)) lens].
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by brian a m stuckless
Hope this HELPs you ((focus)) c,
```Brian
Sorry, not so much..
But perhaps it helps me unfocus, equally important sometime.
Please EXPLAiN "..it helps me unfocus, equally important..".!!

Sincerely ((focus)) c,
```Brian
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by brian a m stuckless
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Laurent
2005-09-18 16:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by shevek
However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one that I
understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?
Momentum is frame dependent... it is relative and observer dependent.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Momentum.html
Exactly... and that means that objects MUST be connected through and by space.

Sam, empty space (aether) is not what separates us, it is what unites the universe.

--
Laurent
Sam Wormley
2005-09-18 18:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Post by Sam Wormley
Momentum is frame dependent... it is relative and observer dependent.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Momentum.html
Exactly... and that means that objects MUST be connected through and by space.
No--That's not a valid definition of momentum. Grade: F
Paul Stowe
2005-09-18 02:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by shevek
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
Well put Paul! Thank you.
Einstein certainly advanced our knowledge of the aether.
However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one
that I understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?
You'd have to ask Laurent on what he means.

In LeSagian gravity (an aether model) it is,

v
a = ¿µ - -> (¿µ/c)v -> Kv
c

Given ¿ = 6.74E+00 kg/m-sec^2
µ = 3.15E-6 m^2/kg
c = 2.00E+08 m/sec
v = [Relative] velocity
K = ¿µ/c

Then both observed momentum (mv) and observed decelerative drag
(a) will be frame dependent.

Paul Stowe
s***@yahoo.com
2005-09-18 16:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by shevek
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
Well put Paul! Thank you.
Einstein certainly advanced our knowledge of the aether.
However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one
that I understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?
You'd have to ask Laurent on what he means.
In LeSagian gravity (an aether model) it is,
v
a = ¿µ - -> (¿µ/c)v -> Kv
c
Given ¿ = 6.74E+00 kg/m-sec^2
µ = 3.15E-6 m^2/kg
c = 2.00E+08 m/sec
v = [Relative] velocity
K = ¿µ/c
Then both observed momentum (mv) and observed decelerative drag
(a) will be frame dependent.
I see that you have been influenced by Brian´s notation?

Any supposed aether drag should be expressible as some term that
depends only on the speed of the object relative to the rest frame of
the aethrons. This term should be independent of any laboratory motion
from which the object is observed.

The momentum, however, is measured or defined relative to a laboratory
frame.
Paul Stowe
2005-09-18 22:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by shevek
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
Well put Paul! Thank you.
Einstein certainly advanced our knowledge of the aether.
However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one
that I understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?
You'd have to ask Laurent on what he means.
In LeSagian gravity (an aether model) it is,
v
a = ¿µ - -> (¿µ/c)v -> Kv
c
Given ¿ = 6.74E+00 kg/m-sec^2
µ = 3.15E-6 m^2/kg
c = 2.00E+08 m/sec
v = [Relative] velocity
K = ¿µ/c
Then both observed momentum (mv) and observed decelerative drag
(a) will be frame dependent.
I see that you have been influenced by Brian´s notation?
Huh???
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Any supposed aether drag should be expressible as some term that
depends only on the speed of the object relative to the rest frame
of the aethrons.
as in, ¿µ/c
Post by s***@yahoo.com
This term should be independent of any laboratory motion
from which the object is observed.
It is... But the observed 'relative' decelration is not.

For example, system A (multiple macoscopic bodies) are all moving
at speed = v'. For said system a body is propelled to speed v
such that v = v' + dv. Just like momentum (which can also be
related to the frame of the so-called aetherons) the 'relative'
increase (since the entire system A is uniformly decelerating at
kv') is simply Kdv with respect to system A...
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The momentum, however, is measured or defined relative to a
laboratory frame.
So is aether drag... For the very same reason. Mathematically
this is shown by,

p = mv
and
a = Kv

Where v is relative to the system doing the measurin'...

Paul Stowe
Laurent
2005-09-18 16:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by shevek
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
Well put Paul! Thank you.
Einstein certainly advanced our knowledge of the aether.
However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one
that I understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?
You'd have to ask Laurent on what he means.
In LeSagian gravity (an aether model) it is,
v
a = ¿µ - -> (¿µ/c)v -> Kv
c
Given ¿ = 6.74E+00 kg/m-sec^2
µ = 3.15E-6 m^2/kg
c = 2.00E+08 m/sec
v = [Relative] velocity
K = ¿µ/c
Then both observed momentum (mv) and observed decelerative drag
(a) will be frame dependent.
Paul Stowe
It's really simple. Process requires time, right?

Particles are all inter-related to one another through and by space, each time they change their rate of motion in relation to their frame of reference, all parameters like energy consumption, relative position, etc., change, and new adjustments are required, that takes time.

If the Universe is really a whole containing and providing all the energy required for it to work, that means all particles must 'report' how much energy is being used, that takes time. This lag in information flow is what we experience as inertia. That is aether caused drag.

--
Laurent
Sam Wormley
2005-09-17 17:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...
Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,
2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717031
That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.
Post by Sam Wormley
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
" ...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 wonld 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. ..."
Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
Paul Stowe
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
Paul Stowe
2005-09-17 17:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...
Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,
2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717031
That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.
Post by Sam Wormley
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
" ...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 wonld 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. ..."
Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
What a mindless drone!

Paul Stowe
FrediFizzx
2005-09-17 18:05:58 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Stowe" <***@best.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:38:50 GMT, Sam Wormley <***@mchsi.com>
wrote:
|
| >Paul Stowe wrote:
| >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:22:38 GMT, Sam Wormley <***@mchsi.com>
wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>>Laurent wrote:
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>> But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
| >>>> aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
| >>>> If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
| >>>> an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
| >>>>
| >>>> As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
| >>>> follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
| >>>> are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
| >>>> The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
| >>>> property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
| >>>> act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
| >>>> master mathematician to figure that out, right?
| >>>
| >>> "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
| >>> superfluous..." -A. Einstein
| >>
| >> There are several things about this response that bring into
| >> question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
| >> poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
| >> GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
| >> reference TO, or about, GR...
| >>
| >> Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
| >> necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
| >> frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
| >> as used IN CONTEXT above means,
| >>
| >> 2. inessential: not essential
| >> as in: superfluous to the discussion
| >> See:
| >>
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717031
| >>
| >> That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
| >> Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
| >> several times, including the reference cited below.
| >>
| >>
| >>> See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| >>
| >> The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
| >> reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
| >> By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
| >> GR) Einstein wrote:
| >>
| >> http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
| >>
| >> " ...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 wonld 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. ..."
| >>
| >> Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
| >> was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
| >> the "Handbook of Physics" clearly & unambigiously states:
| >>
| >> "The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
| >> GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
| >> of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
| >> reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
| >> assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
| >> of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
| >> defined by the symmetric tensor..."
| >>
| >> Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
| >> ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
| >> undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
| >>
| >> Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
| >> documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
| >> dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
| >
| > Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
Relativity
| > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
| >
| > Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
| > injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could
be said
| > to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that
sense,
| > to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind
of
| > "aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
| > nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever
since,
| > by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence
that
| > "gtr is an aether theory".
| >
| > Luminiferous Ether
| > http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
| > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
| >
| > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
| > http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
| > No aether
|
| What a mindless drone!
|
| Paul Stowe

Hey Paul, you can just throw this back at the drones; no discussion
required.

Volovik says it fairly well in his book "The Universe in a Helium
Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Laurent
2005-09-17 18:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...
Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,
2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717031
That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.
Post by Sam Wormley
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
" ...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 wonld 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. ..."
Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
Paul Stowe
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra and
Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at
the Planck Scale"]

***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the
passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change. "***

" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric."

" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical
physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be
perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge
if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics
that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the
process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome
in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state'
are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of
'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical
physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply.
" -------- John Baez

--
Laurent
Laurent
2005-09-17 18:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...
Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,
2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717031
That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.
Post by Sam Wormley
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
" ...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 wonld 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. ..."
Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
Paul Stowe
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
"He clearly did not mean the kind of "aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since, by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is an aether theory".

Clearly!

--
Laurent
s***@yahoo.com
2005-09-18 16:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...
Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,
2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717031
That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.
Post by Sam Wormley
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
" ...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 wonld 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. ..."
Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
Paul Stowe
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
Time to get ill :)
Post by Sam Wormley
Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
This proves absolutely nothing. Try googling "flat earth".
That being said, I note the first entry on the list describes
"electromagnetic fields filling all space", responsible for the casimir
force.

Are you pointing out that the aether is a necessary concept for any
physicist to envision field theory?
Post by Sam Wormley
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
This is really one of the worst I have seen on this excellent website.

Seriously, they say the MMX was an "attempt to detect the existence of
the aether"? Not according to M&M.. it was an attempt to measure the
motion of the aether relative to the earth. Huge difference!

And they misrepresent Einstein too..

Einstein said aether is superfluous.. in the context of space & time
measurements in special relativity.
Post by Sam Wormley
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
If I recall correctly, this was a decent article. However it is poor
form to post pay-only links to the ngs, no?
Post by Sam Wormley
No aether
Private Property
No Aether Allowed
brian a m stuckless
2005-09-17 21:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Einstein's QUOTE:
"Not made by parts that follow a timeline..." does NOT say,
"NOT made up of MOLAR PARTiCLEs, at all..", at all ..duh.!!

AMBiENT MEDiA are COMPOSED of MOLAR PARTiCLES (mol part).!!

Boltzmann's constant k -> jOULE / (mol part) / degKelvin.!!
The (mol part) here is a MOLAR PARTiCLE of AMBiENT MEDiA.!!
MOLAR PARTiCLEs are *NOT* included in GENERAL RELATiViTY.!!

Boltzmann's constant k -> jOULE / (mol part)*K
-> kg*meter / Amp*second
-> jOULE*sec / Amp*meter.

The GUESS STANDARD AMBiENT = Uo*Eo*(mol part)
= Uo*Eo*MOL / Na
= 1*(mol part) / c^2
-> (mol part)*(sec)^2 / m^2
-> electromagnetic CHARGE / K
-> Amp*sec / K.

These units SEEM odd first ..but you'll c.!!

Thank you sincerely,
```Brian
Post by Paul Stowe
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Post by Laurent
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, --
insert ..see top.
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Laurent
-- that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...
Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,
2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717031
That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
" ...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 wonld 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. ..."
Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
Paul Stowe
Bilge
2005-09-19 14:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
OK, even if I assume that your own understanding of einstein's
``reconsidering'' is correct (which I don't), who cares? Read the
date: 1920. It's now 2005 and einstein has been dead for 50 years.
Teleport yourself to this millenium.

[...]
Post by Paul Stowe
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Based on your own argument, do you now agree with everything
einstein proposed? Idiot.
Paul Stowe
2005-09-20 04:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
Post by Paul Stowe
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
OK, even if I assume that your own understanding of einstein's
``reconsidering'' is correct (which I don't), who cares? Read
the date: 1920. It's now 2005 and einstein has been dead for
50 years. Teleport yourself to this millenium.
[...]
Post by Paul Stowe
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Based on your own argument, do you now agree with everything
Einstein proposed?
Do YOU agree with EVERYTHING anyone says or proposes?
Post by Bilge
Idiot.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861620004/definition.html

I may be many things but, by any objective measure, with a
GCI-ARI score of 123, and a measured IQ of 148, idiot is
not one of them. If this is any indication of your objective
reasoning & judgment abilities no wonder you write so much
bilge.

But the content of your post here is, as much bilge as is
everything else you write. You choose your self representative
handle well, did someone spoon feed it to you?

Paul Stowe
Sam Wormley
2005-09-20 05:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Bilge
Post by Paul Stowe
The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
OK, even if I assume that your own understanding of einstein's
``reconsidering'' is correct (which I don't), who cares? Read
the date: 1920. It's now 2005 and einstein has been dead for
50 years. Teleport yourself to this millenium.
[...]
Post by Paul Stowe
Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
Based on your own argument, do you now agree with everything
Einstein proposed?
Do YOU agree with EVERYTHING anyone says or proposes?
Post by Bilge
Idiot.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861620004/definition.html
I may be many things but, by any objective measure, with a
GCI-ARI score of 123, and a measured IQ of 148, idiot is
not one of them. If this is any indication of your objective
reasoning & judgment abilities no wonder you write so much
bilge.
For a bright guy Paul, how did you get lost down the aether
road?
Post by Paul Stowe
But the content of your post here is, as much bilge as is
everything else you write. You choose your self representative
handle well, did someone spoon feed it to you?
Paul Stowe
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-20 06:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
For a bright guy Paul, how did you get lost down the aether
road?
Not to violate the basic principles of physics, an observer shall always
observe the speed of light in vacuum to be of his own even if locally the
value of that observed speed of light is diffferent. Knowing this, it is
not scientific minded to say the speed of light is a universal constant. If
locally we can have different values of the speed of light, the Aether must
exist to allow this to happen.
Sam Wormley
2005-09-20 13:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by Sam Wormley
For a bright guy Paul, how did you get lost down the aether
road?
Not to violate the basic principles of physics, an observer shall always
observe the speed of light in vacuum to be of his own even if locally the
value of that observed speed of light is diffferent. Knowing this, it is
not scientific minded to say the speed of light is a universal constant. If
locally we can have different values of the speed of light, the Aether must
exist to allow this to happen.
"locally we can have different values of the speed of light"--and the
data is published where?
Koobee Wublee
2005-09-20 20:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Koobee Wublee
Not to violate the basic principles of physics, an observer shall always
observe the speed of light in vacuum to be of his own even if locally the
value of that observed speed of light is diffferent. Knowing this, it
is not scientific minded to say the speed of light is a universal
constant. If locally we can have different values of the speed of light,
the Aether must exist to allow this to happen.
"locally we can have different values of the speed of light"--and the
data is published where?
No, it is not published anywhere. However, it can be observed indirectly
everywhere. The above statement describes what gravity is.
Paul Stowe
2005-09-20 23:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Bilge wrote bilge... > Idiot.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861620004/definition.html
I may be many things but, by any objective measure, with a
GCI-ARI score of 123, and a measured IQ of 148, idiot is
not one of them. If this is any indication of your objective
reasoning & judgment abilities no wonder you write so much
bilge.
For a bright guy Paul, how did you get lost down the aether
road?
Being a 'bright guy' I follow the indicators of nature. I
actually went back & look at & read the works of Maxwell and
E. Whittaker. I following my training, and believed what was
indicated. I started with the Faraday/Maxwell concept:

See: http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf

I doubt you've EVER bothered to actually take the time to read
or study this or Volovik's work. The fact is, ANY! physical
medium that consists of discrete kinetic entities with physical
separation MUST! have certain basic characteristics including,
an effective action parameter h as 2PL (or 2PI if you like) and
a finite density perturbation term, e as 2P/L. It must also
have a density £, a coefficient of compressibility µ, and the
inverse of the product of £ & µ must be the characteristic
propagation speed c. The medium will also have a characteristic
impedence z, as Sqrt(£/µ) and the inverse Z, as Sqrt(µ/£)...

This IS basic kinetic theory, and nothing more complicated or
"strange".

I then assume that, as Faraday observed and Maxwell quantified,
the basic medium has the following characteristics:

1. The medium is nearly inviscid (inviscid = zero viscosity
a.k.a. NO internal dissipation) I assume that this isn't
quite true. In fact there IS a non-zero, but very small
viscosity (this is assumed to be the source of gravity).
This is a divergence from Maxwell's idealization. But,
the medium can be treated in approximation, for the most
part, as if it were inviscid (as Maxwell did).

2. The Faraday/Maxwell vortex is essentially a standard ring
vortex (For a good illustration of the circulation in
such a structure, see: http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/indexX.shtml)

[Please note that referring to this illustration in no way
means that I agree with or endorse any other concepts
found at that site.]

3. Each such vortex constitutes a permanent 'entity' of the
medium, and these has a discrete volume, they contains
momentum (in both angular and linear form), and has
vibrational oscillations occuring on both the poloidal
and toroidal axes.

4. The vibrations that can occur on such a ring structure are,
and must be, inherrently quantized.

5. As Kelvin determined, ring vortices are unstable above
a critical size, decomposing into smaller and smaller
vortex rings. To see this in action, see:
http://www.mae.cornell.edu/fdrl/publications/Leweke_Williamson.pdf
However, in a granular medium (that which underlies the
vortices) this cannot continue forever. As the scale at
which the poloidal/toroidal circulation paths approaches
the mean free paths of the media, to support circulation
and conserve the angular momentum, a stability is achieved.
This lower limit forces a quantization of the size of
these vortices.

The sub particles that form these vortices are that which
are 'assumed' to be idealized as a simple kinetic medium.
These do however have a volume, (thus a finite non-zero
interaction length), a linear momentum, and cannot ocupy
the the same volume at the same time. The collisions
between them are perfectly elastic (that is, no energy is
gained or lost during the collision, and, there exists NO!
extended forces either attractive or repulsive emanating
from, and existing between, these particles.

6. All EM/QM processes are assumed to occuring as interactions
between the ring vortices. These 'entities' form a lattice
that acts together as a supersolid structure. This supersolid
is, like all things, not perfect. The imperfections on the
lattice constitutes that which we would call matter.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm

7. Thus the the lattice vortex entities have qunatized momentum
P, a mean spacing L and an interacting geometry factor relatable
to the surfaces of the vortices. This dimensionless factor is
that which we call the fine structure constant â (~1/137). It
in turn embodies the hyperfine structure (g), namely:

â = 1/[Sqrt(3)2(gpi)^2] = ~ 1/137

(As Bile just loves to point out, there is a 0.0386 variance, or
0.028% difference from the published value of 137.036... so, I
have failed to account for another rather subtle component here
somewhere. If you like just use alpha as published, either way
it won't affect the accuracy of the numbers, it will affect
precision)

Where g = 2(1.001159653193) = 2.00231930638
and 1.001159653193 = magnetic moment anomaly

With these parameters,

P = ~5.155E-27 kg-m/sec
L = ~6.431E-08 m(eters)

We can now define the principal observed constants of nature,

h = 2PL (Planck's Constant)
e = 2P/L (Elemental Charge)
k = L^2/c (Boltzmann's Constant)
£ = P/âL^3c (Permittivity)
µ = âL^3/Pc (Permeability)

What I don't have (and Ilja and other may provide this) is a clear
understanding of the actual nature (form & structure) of matter,
and its relationship to the vortex lattice. But, I've never claimed
to know it all.

However, if you look at the vortex ring illustrated in the reference
above you'll notice that its gyroscopic reaction to any simple linear
perturbation will be anything but simple. A 3D lattice consisting
solely of such entities is very unlikely to allow any like a simple
linear longitudinal wave to propagate without transforming its basic
form. One would expect a spiral pattern on the lattice to result.
Ah yes, and before you ask, the sub medium (that which forms the
lattice) must also have an interaction term (2P'L') and density
variance term 2P'/L'. When the frequency rises and wavelength
decrease below L the lattice can no longer sustain the wave solely
on the superstructure it will, At that juncture, be carried by the
sub medium. This wavelength matches is the onset of ionization.

I would argue that it is modernists that have lost their way. It is,
as always, a matter of prespective. Hell, at least I do get totally
new relationships. :)

Paul Stowe
Bilge
2005-09-21 11:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
I doubt you've EVER bothered to actually take the time to read
or study this or Volovik's work.
It's clear that you haven't read or studied ``his work,'' so I
see no reason why you should criticize anyone for not reading or
studying it. If you had bothered to read past the introduction
(which is one of 6 places in the entire 526 page book that the
word ``ether'' appears, youd realize that he uses the word
``ether'' as a synonym for ``quantum vacuum'' and which is
completely irreconcilable with any definition, concept or handaving
soliloquy you've ever suggested for an ether.

In particular, he does _not_ say that the ether is some kind of
medium which fills space with particles moving around. He does
something considerably more reasonable. He suggests that time and
space _are_ the classical limits of underlying fields for which
space and time don't have any meaning. That is what he means by
``emergent.'' By contrast, your concept of a medium is a bunch
of particles that move around in space. That explains why you
cant understand my question about supplying a ``cause'' for the
pythagorean theorem. You can't even conceive of the type of theory
which volovik describes. The bulk of volovik's book is devoted to
_symmetry_ and broken symmetries as the physics from which the
rest ``emerges.'' Moreover, his book is primarily concerned with
identifying _analogs_ to some (unspecified) theory, in order to
understand how experiments might provide the clues to the fundamental
symmetries from which the rest ``emerges'' upon being broken.

You've consistently rejected the concepts which are crucial to
anything volovik has said, so whatever your argument, volovik's
work isn't reconcilable with your assertions.
Post by Paul Stowe
The fact is, ANY! physical
medium that consists of discrete kinetic entities with physical
separation MUST! have certain basic characteristics including,
an effective action parameter h as 2PL (or 2PI if you like) and
a finite density perturbation term, e as 2P/L. It must also
You are so desparate its getting ridiculous. The assumptions in kinetic
theory are that the gas is dilute, the collisions are elastic and there is
no attractive interaction between the constituents. What youve written,
you simply made up.

Oh, and also that the walls of the containing vessel are elastic. In
other words, to apply that to the universe, you have to imagine the
universe having a boundary from which particles bounce back elastically.

You're a whore in the most perjorative sense of the word (i.e.,
in a sense having nothing to do with what is being sold, but in
the sense that one is rationalizing behaviour which he/she knows
is morally bankrupt.) You follow none of so-called principles.
Everything you ever been brow beaten into defining has clearly
demonstrated you're wrong by virtue of giving incorrect relults
and you've simply denied the facts by appealing to things you
refuse to define.
d***@hotmail.com
2005-09-21 12:08:00 UTC
Permalink
TEST
Bilge
2005-09-20 13:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Stowe
Post by Bilge
Based on your own argument, do you now agree with everything
Einstein proposed?
Do YOU agree with EVERYTHING anyone says or proposes?
I post my own arguments for the claims I make so that the question
doesn't arise. On the other hand you rely on selectively quoting dead
people in order to avoid having think up your own argument, so what
I asked was a fair question.
Post by Paul Stowe
I may be many things but, by any objective measure, with a
GCI-ARI score of 123, and a measured IQ of 148, idiot is
not one of them. If this is any indication of your objective
reasoning & judgment abilities no wonder you write so much
bilge.
There's nothing objective about it. The fact that I think you're
an idiot is based on observing your attempts portray what you post
as original, cutting edge physics, despite your inability to do
halliday & resnick level physics. Since you could probably
bullshit someone even less knowledgeable than yourself into
thinking you know what your're talking about, I would have to
call my assessment subjective - at least if you include a
sample population consisting of people other than scientists.
Post by Paul Stowe
But the content of your post here is, as much bilge as is
everything else you write. You choose your self representative
handle well, did someone spoon feed it to you?
Unlike you, I don't need to go quote mining to decide what
to do, say or believe.
Sam Wormley
2005-09-20 13:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bilge
There's nothing objective about it. The fact that I think you're
an idiot is based on observing your attempts portray what you post
as original, cutting edge physics, despite your inability to do
halliday & resnick level physics. Since you could probably
bullshit someone even less knowledgeable than yourself into
thinking you know what your're talking about, I would have to
call my assessment subjective - at least if you include a
sample population consisting of people other than scientists.
Now that is a shortcoming for Paul--
not having worked through Halliday & Resnick.

What is really fun is Classical Mechanics--I used
different trick and tools I had learned all through
my mathematical life to work those problems!
Laurent
2005-09-17 18:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Wormley
Post by Laurent
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free. If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free. The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a master mathematician to figure that out, right?
"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory
of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. 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.
The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory
have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.
Ludwik Kostro, (Apeiron, Montreal, 2000*)

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm


Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from 1905 to
1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too radical and even
regretted that his works published before 1916 had so definitely and
absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."

The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions which
Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is therefore
full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up to the point
of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special appendix). Here
they are some examples of Einstein's thoughts:

"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier
publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity,
instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that
with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed
as a carrier of physical qualities."


Moreover:

" [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak
about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we
will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to
assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states.

[...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties,
i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity [...] ".


And again:

"This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development if
science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by relativity
theory."

It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein, where
he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to say, the
necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but endowed with
physical properties:

"There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the ether. To
deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all
physical properties to empty space."

"The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is mostly a
latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological
quantum field theory.

" But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the
ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical
and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
electromagnetic) events. "

" 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

--
Laurent

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)


" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour
of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that
empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
mechanics do not harmonize with this view. --- *For the mechanical behaviour
of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on
relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its
state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not
appertaining to the system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look upon
the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton
objectivises space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with
real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space
"Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, ---
*another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real,* ---
to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which
is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean
acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in
place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial
resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes
action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he
may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows
Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.
But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of
thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by
Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of
inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.


Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of
relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum
of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time,
and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory
under consideration.


(Which means that all points in space are interconnected) -- Laurent


This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of
space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space
" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling
us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials
g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has
again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely
from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. ---
*The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine
mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*


What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity
as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, --- *that the state of
the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and
the state of the ether in neighbouring places,* --- which are amenable to
law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the
Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by
nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if
we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the
former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the
outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "


[...]


" ...when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into
harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of
theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the
theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical,
and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in
the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed
atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According
to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying
out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the
carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all
electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.


As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it,
in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical
property of which it has not been deprived by H, A. Lorentz. It may be added
that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether
its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. " ---- Albert Einstein


----------------------------------------------------


Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific "A
history of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" published in 1951 said:


"As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of the
nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth, chiefly as
result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to
the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such attempts must
always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour, and it became customary
to refer to the interplanetary spaces as "vacuous"; the vacuum being
conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except that of propagating
electromagnetic waves. But with the development of quantum electrodynamics,
the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point"
oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations
of electric charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a
dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name
"vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical
word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T. Whittaker


-----------------------------------


In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said -


"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its
capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future." --- P.
Dirac


-----------------------------------


The science popularizer Zukav writes -


"Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles are
excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the vacuum
state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high symmetry that
we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ---- G. Zukav


-----------------------------------


The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states -


"This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been
extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions, each
type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these 'quantum field
theories', the classical contrast between the solid particles and the space
surrounding them is completely overcome. The quantum field is seen as the
fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium which is present everywhere
in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field;
concentrations of energy which come and go, thereby losing their individual
character and dissolving into the underlying field. In the words of Albert
Einstein:


" We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of
space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in this
new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only
reality. " (page 210)


--------------------------------------------------------


And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of what
they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied:


"Of elements."


"Are there then four" he asked.


"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."


"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water and air
and earth and fire?"


"There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the stuff
of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so
do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."


Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas
answered:


"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."


"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"


"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it
engenders all living things."


- The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD.


--------------------------------------------------------------


"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of
quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of
aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of
present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by
relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
. . .


We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
mechanics and conformable to relativity, provided we are willing to consider
a perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the
experimental point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this.
We must make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the
vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather
forced to have an aether."

---- P. A. M. Dirac,
"Is There an Aether?"
Nature 168 (1951): 906-7.


----------------------------------------------------------


"...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action
and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused
by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this
agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my
readers." --- Isaac Newton
Bill Hobba
2005-09-18 08:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Laurent:
Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological quantum
field theory.

Considering Einstein believed quantum theory was incomplete that is highly
unlikely.

I notice those that harp on that lecture do not emphasize what Einstein also
said:

'As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future
we are not yet clear.'

We now know the answer - none at all as any perusal of the modern literature
will attest.

Bill
Laurent
2005-09-18 16:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological quantum
field theory.
Considering Einstein believed quantum theory was incomplete that is highly
unlikely.
I notice those that harp on that lecture do not emphasize what Einstein also
'As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future
we are not yet clear.'
We now know the answer - none at all as any perusal of the modern literature
will attest.
Bill
GR proves that matter and space are just different aspects of one and the same entity. If we are ever to believe the Universe is interconnected, as a whole, we definitely need the notion of an aether. Otherwise, how do you explain Lorentz covariance and relativity... unless you dilute yourself into thinking it's all an illusion created by mathematics. Is that what you believe?

--
Laurent
Bill Hobba
2005-09-19 22:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological quantum
field theory.
Considering Einstein believed quantum theory was incomplete that is highly
unlikely.
I notice those that harp on that lecture do not emphasize what Einstein also
'As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future
we are not yet clear.'
We now know the answer - none at all as any perusal of the modern literature
will attest.
Bill
Laurent
GR proves that matter and space are just different aspects of one and the
same entity.

Maybe you misinterpreted that from the kiddy popularizations that
obliviously influence you but those actually interested in GR generally
progress to the real deal where the basis of GR is gravity is space-time
curvature.

Laurent
If we are ever to believe the Universe is interconnected, as a whole, we
definitely need the notion of an aether.

Your detailed proof of the above assertion is located at?

Laurent
Otherwise, how do you explain Lorentz covariance and relativity...

The symmetries of the POR.

Laurent
unless you dilute yourself into thinking it's all an illusion created by
mathematics. Is that what you believe?

No.

Bill

--
Laurent
Ilja Schmelzer
2005-09-22 11:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Hobba
'As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future
we are not yet clear.'
We now know the answer - none at all as any perusal of the modern literature
will attest.
Ignorance as an argument?

Ilja
oriel36
2005-09-18 18:10:44 UTC
Permalink
To Sam

Do you know who also said the medium is useless -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."


Optics 1704


Oh I know,let's all pretend to close our eyes and not see that Newton
wrote that and maybe another 100 years of pushing a worthless concept
as a supreme human achievement.

"The one great principle of English law (empiricists) is to make
business for itself. "
Charles Dickens
Ole D. Rughede
2005-09-18 21:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by oriel36
To Sam
Do you know who also said the medium is useless -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704
Oh I know,let's all pretend to close our eyes and not see that Newton
wrote that and maybe another 100 years of pushing a worthless concept
as a supreme human achievement.
"The one great principle of English law (empiricists) is to make
business for itself. "
Charles Dickens
Very, very fine, Gerald!

I enjoy reading this text again and wonder what we have achieved since
then. You probably remember that Newton reached a more nuanced view in
his Optics, as also did Einstein on a closer thought of nature.

Best regards, Ole
oriel36
2005-09-19 19:14:30 UTC
Permalink
To Ole

The actual solution is most satisfying but it is too time consuming and
involved and this is just re-aligning the principles which Newton
mangled in his ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion.Albert is
just an unfortunate example of a person making it worse or expanding on
the Newtonian error.

As for Optics ,Newton' errors are highlighted to the nth degree there
and especially his awkward approach to Roemer's insight regarding the
illusion created by finite light speed.Because of the Newtonian
maneuver,it is almost impossible to appreciate the Keplerian insight
and the Roemerian one in isolation but as this is an intricate matter
of correcting the Newtonian error from mean Sun/Earth distances to
observations as seen from the point of view of the Earth's orbital
motion (Roemer.Kepler),the audience here has proved hostile or through
no fault of their own to be entirely unfamiliar with the correct
astronomical/heliocentric principles.

Rather than recycle the same old story leading to the horror of 20th
century homocentricity or indeed follow anything I would wish to
present as a way of adjustment of principles,it may be far better as a
theorist to recognise that Newton took shortcuts on his way to his
ballistics agenda and men in the mid 19th century were acutely aware
of just what obstacles they inherited from him.

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=1&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

I doubt very much if you will get far with the Newtonian combining of
the Keplerian insight with the Roemerian one and especially as the
astronomical format Newton used was an adaption of Flamsteed's
astronomical framework.I would not take this as bad news on any account
even if the solution is genuinely a heavily involved sorting and
sifting of principles.

I think it is worth it or at least will be worth it for we recover the
ability to be truly original rather than be novelistic in respect to
the astronomical discipline.
tj Frazir
2005-09-19 22:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Dark Energy.
Hubble constant past 18bly.
A photon from 1000 bly away will pass you at c with no wavelength .
Space is energy under presure at c with no wavelength .
Gravity is an energy gradiant as orbiting parts of the atom displace ep
at c .
Motion is thecenter of mass not at the same point the center of
gravity is.
Eliptical orbits of the nucleus parts change the center of mass and
gravity.
No atom moves unless the orbiting parts change paths first .
Laurent
2005-09-19 00:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by oriel36
To Sam
Do you know who also said the medium is useless -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704
Oh I know,let's all pretend to close our eyes and not see that Newton
wrote that and maybe another 100 years of pushing a worthless concept
as a supreme human achievement.
"The one great principle of English law (empiricists) is to make
business for itself. "
Charles Dickens
First of all, aether is not matter, therefore can't fill anything.

Einstein's aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits.

CMBR, quantum foam, quantum fluctuations, dark matter, ZPR... all come after the aether.

Aether is dimensionless, motionless, timeless, eternal... yet, it is.

--
Laurent
Ole D. Rughede
2005-09-19 02:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by oriel36
To Sam
Do you know who also said the medium is useless -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704
Oh I know,let's all pretend to close our eyes and not see that Newton
wrote that and maybe another 100 years of pushing a worthless concept
as a supreme human achievement.
"The one great principle of English law (empiricists) is to make
business for itself. "
Charles Dickens
First of all, aether is not matter, therefore can't fill anything.

Einstein's aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits.

CMBR, quantum foam, quantum fluctuations, dark matter, ZPR... all come
after the aether.

Aether is dimensionless, motionless, timeless, eternal... yet, it is.

--
Laurent

Aether is the agent of gravity and inertia. It is radiant energy
propagating in all directions of space with the velocity of light, and
it is present everywhere in space, why geometric space without the
aether, an absolute vacuum, does not exist in physical nature. More
precisely we should therefore speak of the aether-space, but keep the
name space, when knowing what we are talking about.

No forces by distance! The force of gravity is conveyed by the aether as
ordinary forces of contact by energy exchange, leaving a continuous
train of impulses h*ny/c by the enduring interaction between massive
matter and radiation we call mass and aether. The aether is mass-less
but has an equvalent mass U/c^2 g, and it exerts a pressure u/3
dyn/cm^2.

This is the reason for a 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, where the
specific aether energy U, or the aether energy density u, is the 5th.
dimension on the 4-dimensional space-time. For that sake, alternatively
the aether temperature T(Aether) Kelvin could be taken as the 5th.
dimension.

The presence of the aether everywhere in space is the reason for the
immediate action of gravity and inertia, while for instance
gravitational waves resulting from swinging or orbiting masses propagate
with the speed of light as an ondulatory modulation of the aether's own
energy waves.

Without the aether no matter at all would exist, and without radiating
masses no aether would exist. It is therefore hopeless to speculate
"which came first in God's creation"? Aether and its condensations in
massive particles? Or massive particles radiating away their mass into
aether?
It is ridiculous to speculate in a creational big-bang and what happened
in the first few seconds after that. Genesis at least has some better
literary qualities of a man-made poetic myth.

What we may believe is, that the universe is infinitely great and of
eternal selfsupporting existence according to physical laws, that have
not been given by man, and which to the present moment have not yet been
fully deduced by man.

The "smaller bangs" of the ongoing creation of new stars and galaxies in
new worlds, however, should have the attention in physics, astronomy and
cosmology to find out, what is going on in giant black holes, quasars,
and in the galaxies, probably consisting of equal measures of matter and
anti-matter divided by their dusty central planes of separating
annihilation layers.

In micro-cosmos we may wonder why and how the elementary particles
remain stable as minute black holes of definite quantities of
self-oscillating energy with the quality of gravitating mass.

Only the aether physics may answer some of these questions and a lot
more about physical fields, forces and actions. Hey, then do some
physics in stead of these endless discussions like the blind about
colors! Facts will convince even the last sceptic.

Ole
Laurent
2005-09-19 19:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Post by oriel36
To Sam
Do you know who also said the medium is useless -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704
Oh I know,let's all pretend to close our eyes and not see that Newton
wrote that and maybe another 100 years of pushing a worthless concept
as a supreme human achievement.
"The one great principle of English law (empiricists) is to make
business for itself. "
Charles Dickens
First of all, aether is not matter, therefore can't fill anything.
Einstein's aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits.
CMBR, quantum foam, quantum fluctuations, dark matter, ZPR... all come after the aether.
Aether is dimensionless, motionless, timeless, eternal... yet, it is.
--
Laurent
Aether is the agent of gravity and inertia. It is radiant energy
propagating in all directions of space with the velocity of light, and
it is present everywhere in space, why geometric space without the
aether, an absolute vacuum, does not exist in physical nature. More
precisely we should therefore speak of the aether-space, but keep the
name space, when knowing what we are talking about.
No forces by distance! The force of gravity is conveyed by the aether as
ordinary forces of contact by energy exchange, leaving a continuous
train of impulses h*ny/c by the enduring interaction between massive
matter and radiation we call mass and aether. The aether is mass-less
but has an equvalent mass U/c^2 g, and it exerts a pressure u/3
dyn/cm^2.
This is the reason for a 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory, where the
specific aether energy U, or the aether energy density u, is the 5th.
dimension on the 4-dimensional space-time. For that sake, alternatively
the aether temperature T(Aether) Kelvin could be taken as the 5th.
dimension.
The presence of the aether everywhere in space is the reason for the
immediate action of gravity and inertia, while for instance
gravitational waves resulting from swinging or orbiting masses propagate
with the speed of light as an ondulatory modulation of the aether's own
energy waves.
Without the aether no matter at all would exist, and without radiating
masses no aether would exist. It is therefore hopeless to speculate
"which came first in God's creation"? Aether and its condensations in
massive particles? Or massive particles radiating away their mass into
aether?
It is ridiculous to speculate in a creational big-bang and what happened
in the first few seconds after that. Genesis at least has some better
literary qualities of a man-made poetic myth.
What we may believe is, that the universe is infinitely great and of
eternal selfsupporting existence according to physical laws, that have
not been given by man, and which to the present moment have not yet been
fully deduced by man.
The "smaller bangs" of the ongoing creation of new stars and galaxies in
new worlds, however, should have the attention in physics, astronomy and
cosmology to find out, what is going on in giant black holes, quasars,
and in the galaxies, probably consisting of equal measures of matter and
anti-matter divided by their dusty central planes of separating
annihilation layers.
In micro-cosmos we may wonder why and how the elementary particles
remain stable as minute black holes of definite quantities of
self-oscillating energy with the quality of gravitating mass.
Only the aether physics may answer some of these questions and a lot
more about physical fields, forces and actions. Hey, then do some
physics in stead of these endless discussions like the blind about
colors! Facts will convince even the last sceptic.
Ole
Sorry I am taking a while to answer, but I am still studying your reasoning. You blew my mind, exactly what I was hoping to find; someone with enough ability to put it all into mathematical language. I think you might just be that person. Has EL seen this? I wonder what he would say. Are you working alone?

Will get back to you with some questions.

Thank you, now I know there is hope.

--
Laurent
dishington
2005-09-19 23:14:46 UTC
Permalink
See: http://www.lafn.org/~bd261

Roland Dishington
Hatunen
2005-09-20 00:36:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:14:46 -0700, "dishington"
Post by dishington
See: http://www.lafn.org/~bd261
Roland Dishington
I don't see anything about ether there (I was expecting a
surgical web site).

************* DAVE HATUNEN (***@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Androcles
2005-09-19 23:30:17 UTC
Permalink
"dishington" <***@lafn.org> wrote in message news:dgngob$20nk$***@zook.lafn.org...
| See: http://www.lafn.org/~bd261
|
| Roland Dishington

Well, I looked. No abstract, so what is it all about?
Androcles.
brian a m stuckless
2005-09-20 08:55:49 UTC
Permalink
[COSmic.wpd] cosmic relief U_o c
A NET energy state *CANNOT* be increased & decreased
at ONCE (at the SAME time) ..in the SAME CALCULATiON.
1. [ Observe LEFT side OVER / ( no BOTTOM bracket) ].
2. [ SAVEs considerable email LiNE CHARACTER space ].
3. [ PROPER NOTATiON of {mph}*ls is {m_photon}*l_s ].
4. [ Where: m_photon is the EQUiVALENT photon mass ].
5. [ And EQUiVALENT photon mass m = e_photon / c^2 ].
6. [ All Voltage*CHARGE is Volt*Amp*sec, ENERGY eV ].

The GUESS FRAME of REFERENCE for the GUESS equation..
(Planck MASS Mp)*(Planck LENGTH lp)
Mp*lp
= {mph}*ls
= me*a*ao
= me*wls
= Moo*wls / a^2
= me*wlc / 2*pi
= me*re / 2*pi*a
h / 2*pi*c
= k*{e} / 2*pi
= #*{e} / pi*c
= hbar / c
=G*Mp^2 / c^2
= eR*loo / 2*pi*c^2
= eH*loo / 4*pi*c^2
= Moo*loo / 4*pi
= a^2*me*loo / 4*pi
= Moo*ao / a
= [mph]*r1 / nA
= m1*r1 / nA
= pA / nA*c
And EiTHER equal to.. = eV / nA*fA*c
[or] equal to.. = - m1*v1^2 / 2*nA*fA*c .!!

$ information flux quantum
MOLAR constant Ra = Na*k = F*k / {e} = Cg*[S] = 2*(pi + 1).
[Ra / 2*pi = (pi + 1) / pi = (h + 2*hbar) / h = Rx / hbar].

Then: .. (h + nA*hbar) / h
= (2*pi + nA) / 2*pi
= 2*pi*Ri / h
= Ri / hbar
= ni*Na*k / 2*pi
= ni*Ra / 2*pi ..Planck STATiSTiCAL flux.!!

And:.. Ra*(PLANCK TEMPERATURE Tp)
= ni*Ra*(Planck TEMPERATURE UNiT Tp)
= (kinetic energy)*(Planck Tp)*[entropy] / LaGrangian
= (Planck Tp)*[entropy]*(complexity)
= (Tp)*[S]*Cg .!!

THEREfore: 10^29*F*hbar*Tp = 1*(Kelvin TEMPERATURE degK).!!




$ quantum scale invariance
GUESS SERiAL index, of OBSERVED scale invariance follows:

(h + nA*hbar) (2*pi + nA) (X + nA*Y)
-- -- -- -- = -- --- -- = -- -- -- = Ni
h 2*pi X
Planck h ; LOCAL scale ; Each WAY BEYOND... .!!

This will fit a range of FUNDAMENTAL Physical Constants..
GENERALLY, any CASE for which the quantity, X = 2*pi*Y .!!

1. The QUANTiTY wlc is >COMPTON wavelength< of electron.!!
2. The QUANTiTY Moo, >HARTREE energy eH divided by c^2<.!!
3. The QUANTiTY # is the >MAGNETiC flux QUANTUM< Constant.
[ PLANCK h = 2*pi*hbar = k*{e}*c = 2*pi*Qx / 10^20*(e)^4 ]
4. The QUANTiTY Qx is GUESS >STEFAN BOLTZmann Constant<.!!

$ AMBiENT matters REST
THERE is no AMBiENT MEDiA included in GENERAL RELATiViTY.!!
And i am REACHiNG OUT because the "ambient matters", duh.!!

$ ambient matters
AMBiENT MEDiA are COMPOSED of MOLAR PARTiCLES (mol part).!!
Boltzmann's constant k -> jOULE / (mol part) / degKelvin.!!
The (mol part) here is a MOLAR PARTiCLE of AMBiENT MEDiA.!!
MOLAR PARTiCLEs are *NOT* included in GENERAL RELATiViTY.!!

Boltzmann's constant k -> jOULE / (mol part)*degK
-> kg*meter / Amp*second
-> jOULE*sec / Amp*meter.

The GUESS STANDARD AMBiENT = Uo*Eo*(mol part)
= Uo*Eo*MOL / Na
= 1*(mol part) / c^2
-> (mol part)*(sec)^2 / m^2
-> electromagnetic CHARGE / degK
-> Amp*sec / degK ..MEDiUM.!!
THESE units SEEM odd first..
[ Amp*m -> (mol part)*degK*sec ], and soon u 2 will c.!!

QUOTH EinsteiN
"Not made by parts that follow a timeline..." does NOT say,
[*NOT made up of MOLAR PARTiCLEs, at all*, at all ..duh.!!]

The GR-Tivity GR gtr *COUP* (STiLL) deny EinsteiN's LAW.!!
EinsteiN's LAW is NOT relativistic:
A. --[ ANY energy e / c^2 = EQUiVALENT mass ]--;
B. --[ ANY mass m = EQUiVALENT energy / c^2 ]--.
i.e.
1. REST mass m_o = e_o / c^2 ..is NOT relativistic.
2. ABSORBED photon mass E_o / c^2 NOT relativistic.
*RELATiViSTiC* only applies with a VELOCiTY, duh.!!
So EinsteiN's LAW also iNCLUDEs the RELATiViSTiC.!!

THAT is the GREAT *BEAUTY* of EinsteiN's LAW.!!





[GPSbob.wpd]; GPS & c^2 / f_b
The relative difference in the rate of a clock in a circular orbit of
EARth compared to a clock 'in' a Very Low Orbit (VLO) 'at' EQUiVALENT
radius as EARth (NOT "on" EARth's surface ..as some scientists say):
The GPS ATOMiC clock PREset Factor is 4.46 x 10^-10
= (Very Low Orbit period tb) / (t1 - tb)
= GPS orbital AMBiENT density / SURFACE AMBiENT density d3
= (GPS AMBiENT particle COUNT/m^3) / Loschmidt's Constant ..no
= (1.20 x 10^16 molpart/m^3) / (2.69 x 10^25 molpart/m^3)
= (v1^2 - vb^2) / 2*c^2
= (rA*gA - r3*g3) / 2*c^2
= G*M1*[{1/(n1 - 1)*rA} - {1/(n3 - 1)*r3}] / c^2
(fA - fb) / fb
= [{G*M1 / {(n1 - 1)*rA}} - {G*M1 / {(n3 - 1)*r3}}] / c^2.

1. CAViTY n=0 only & always in GR & Newton Tivity (BOTH ..no AMBiENT).
2. The GUESS Kinematic ViSCOCiTY & DiFFUSiON factor = c^2 / fb
= G*M1*[{1/(n1 - 1)*rA} - {1/(n3 - 1)*r3}] / (fA - fb).
3. v1^2 = G*M1 / (n1 - 1)*rA = rA*gA.
4. Vb^2 = G*M1 / (n3 - 1)*r3 = r3*g3 ..Note delta ALTiTUDE, (rA - r3).
5. The CAViTY n of n1 & n3 of mass m1 includes any m1 LATTiCE VACANCY.

M1 = Mass of EARth (here).
G = Gravitational Constant.
r3 = radius of EARth or rocket VLO.
rA = radius of orbiting clock's orbit.
v1 = 2*pi*rA/t1 = orbital speed of orbiting clock.
vb = 2*pi*r3/t3 = speed of the EARth clock (ECi frame).
v1^2 = rA*g = (vescape)^2 / 2*(n - 1) = G*M1 / (n - 1)*rA
[ m1*c/h=nL/wl=fL/c=pL/h=nA/2*pi*rA=eV/h*fA*rA=pA/h*rA ].

COSmic reLiEF U_o c.
("`-/")_.-'"``-._
\. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
Yours sincerely, \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
```brian a m stuckless - O - _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
TiME 05:24iPMtue20sep2005; / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
p.s.
(n - 1) = (mD - m1) / m1 = Fine Structure VARiABLE,
--where mD is EQUiVALENT AMBiENT DisCHARGE mass from m1
--and where (n) = mD / m1 ..provides the + or - sign.

No more is more.
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)

_.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.
Post by Androcles
| See: http://www.lafn.org/~bd261
|
| Roland Dishington
Well, I looked. No abstract, so what is it all about?
Androcles.
Ole D. Rughede
2005-09-20 00:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Thank you very much,

Ole D. Rughede
Post by dishington
See: http://www.lafn.org/~bd261
Roland Dishington
brian a m stuckless
2005-09-17 12:33:56 UTC
Permalink
[GPSbob.wpd]; GPS & c^2 / f_b
The relative difference in the rate of a clock in a circular orbit of
EARth compared to a clock 'in' a Very Low Orbit (VLO) 'at' EQUiVALENT
radius as EARth (NOT "on" EARth's surface ..as some scientists say):
The GPS ATOMiC clock PREset Factor is 4.46 x 10^-10
= (Very Low Orbit period tb) / (t1 - tb)
= GPS orbital AMBiENT density / SURFACE AMBiENT density d3
= (GPS AMBiENT particle COUNT/m^3) / Loschmidt's Constant ..no
= (1.20 x 10^16 molpart/m^3) / (2.69 x 10^25 molpart/m^3)
= (v1^2 - vb^2) / 2*c^2
= (rA*gA - r3*g3) / 2*c^2
= G*M1*[{1/(n1 - 1)*rA} - {1/(n3 - 1)*r3}] / c^2
(fA - fb) / fb
= [{G*M1 / {(n1 - 1)*rA}} - {G*M1 / {(n3 - 1)*r3}}] / c^2.

1. CAViTY n=0 only & always in GR & Newton Tivity (BOTH ..no AMBiENT).
2. The GUESS Kinematic Viscosity & Diffusion factor = c^2 / fb
= G*M1*[{1/(n1 - 1)*rA} - {1/(n3 - 1)*r3}] / (fA - fb).
3. v1^2 = G*M1 / (n1 - 1)*rA = rA*gA.
4. Vb^2 = G*M1 / (n3 - 1)*r3 = r3*g3 ..Note delta ALTiTUDE, (rA - r3).
5. The CAViTY n of n1 & n3 of mass m1 includes any m1 LATTiCE VACANCY.

M1 = Mass of EARth (here).
G = Gravitational Constant.
r3 = radius of EARth or rocket VLO.
rA = radius of orbiting clock's orbit.
v1 = 2*pi*rA/t1 = orbital speed of orbiting clock.
vb = 2*pi*r3/t3 = speed of the EARth clock (ECi frame).
v1^2 = rA*g = (vescape)^2 / 2*(n - 1) = G*M1 / (n - 1)*rA
[ m1*c/h=nL/wl=fL/c=pL/h=nA/2*pi*rA=eV/h*fA*rA=pA/h*rA ].
Post by Laurent
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
("`-/")_.-'"``-._
\. . `; -._ )-;-, `)
Yours sincerely, \ / (v_,) _ )`-.\ ``-'
```brian a m stuckless - O - _.- _..-_/ / ((.'
TiME 07:29iAMsat17sep2005; / \ ((,.-' ((,/ By: Toe.!
p.s.
(n - 1) = (mD - m1) / m1 = Fine Structure VARiABLE,
--where mD is EQUiVALENT AMBiENT DisCHARGE mass from m1
--and where (n) = mD / m1 ..provides the + or - sign.

No more is more.
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | |
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)

_.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.
Post by Laurent
Post by Sam Wormley
What is important is the empirical results of observation and
experiment. Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished.
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
The only tangible argument describing SR is none other than the set of good
old Lorentz Transforms. As it is presented by Einstein and his
contemporaries such as Lorentz and Lorentz, it does have a great tendancy to
mislead anyone even ones with PhDs to turn their backs on the Aethers. The
whole misunderstanding should rectify itself if one can present the Lorentz
Transforms not just dependent on relative speeds of the observing and the
observed frames but also these frames' observed values of the speed of light
in vacuum. With one able to describe how two frames with drastically
different values of the speeds of light in vacuum able to observe one
another, there is just no morre excuse to turn your back on the Aether. It
must exist where each associated Aether particle must be massless and
chargeless and spinless. These traits are not the easiest to allow a
definite detectection even with modern advancement in technology.
The Lorentz Transforms killed the Aether. Despite all the great minds
including Einstein who was created to be one by the media, the transforms
are not complete. We can write down the more generalized version of them to
allow all sorts of the values of the speed of light in vacuum to observe and
be observed by anyone. Since GR can only be correct if there is no Aether,
it is in jeopody of being regarded as a non-crank theory. And Einstein is
close to be regarded as one of the dozen cranks who is able to fudge their
answers according to the observed Mercury's orbital anomaly.
Don't believe in Einstein's fudging? Concentrate on the integration
constant from integration of Lagrangian Method on time. These same PhDs are
avoiding the following equation describing how an object trapped in the
curvature of spacetime according to the Schwarzschild metric. This equation
can easily be derived from the spacetime equation of a non-rotating and
massive central object such as the sun in our solar system based on Fermat's
principle of least action.
E = m c^2 sqrt(1 - 2 U) / sqrt(1 - B^2)
Where
** U = G M / r / c^2
** B^2 = (dr/dt)^2 / c^2 / (1 - 2 U)^2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2 / c^2 / (1 - 2 U)...
** m c^2 B^2 / 2 = Newtonian kinetic energy
** m c^2 U = - Newtonian potential energy
Applying the principle of conservation of energy where (dE/dt = dE/dr = 0),
there is no absolute way to avoid a null effect on Mercury's orbital
anomaly. Math cannot lie, although it can be manipulated.
You say: "Since GR can only be correct if there is no Aether"
But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free. If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free. The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a master mathematician to figure that out, right?
--
Laurent
m***@sbcglobal.net
2005-09-18 02:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koobee Wublee
The only tangible argument describing SR is none other than the set of good
old Lorentz Transforms. As it is presented by Einstein and his
contemporaries such as Lorentz and Lorentz, it does have a great tendancy to
mislead anyone even ones with PhDs to turn their backs on the Aethers.
The
Post by Koobee Wublee
whole misunderstanding should rectify itself if one can present the Lorentz
Transforms not just dependent on relative speeds of the observing and the
observed frames but also these frames' observed values of the speed of light
in vacuum.
With one able to describe how two frames with drastically
Post by Koobee Wublee
different values of the speeds of light in vacuum able to observe one
another, there is just no morre excuse to turn your back on the Aether.
It
Post by Koobee Wublee
must exist where each associated Aether particle must be massless and
chargeless and spinless. These traits are not the easiest to allow a
definite detectection even with modern advancement in technology.
Will try.

when a charged partical in motion is painted with dynamic electrical fields,
it sees those fields as confining and the confining squeeze (electrical
pressure on the charged partical) causes a change in its inertia as it seeks
the path of least resistance.
the topography of the charge is manipulated by the charges own frame motion
and the frames of the sources of the offending dynamic electrical fields
which can be many and from different frames which have individual dynamics.
the charged partical in motion sees only one set of topology arguments which
is actually the combined whole of all the dynamic electrical fields to which
it must respond. A continually changing response as the picture of
influences place varied electrical pressures on the partical.

The charged partical is said to experience a re-direction of inertia as an
effect, for which the cause is Ampere's dynamic electrical fields. The
transformations are automatic as fields merge and the math of the
expressions of transformation is purely
an algorythm. The avalanch propagation of dynamic electrical fields needs no
vehicle or medium but rates of avalanch propagation and attributes like
reluctance or hysteresis are medium controlled. Aether is a ways and means
to convey dynamic electrical fields. Gravity, magnetic functions are effects
caused by re-direction of inertia and are not conveyed.
Kind regards, Lee Pugh
Uncle Al
2005-09-15 19:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Laurent wrote:
[snip crap]
Post by Laurent
Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real but
non-material ratios which often help determine Lorentz invariant geometrical
properties of objects.
[snip rest of crap]

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Gerald L. O'Barr
2005-09-15 19:47:02 UTC
Permalink
. . .
O'Barr (globarr) comments:
I enjoyed your article. I liked some of your
quotes.
It is my understanding that a group of un-named
professors, back in the 1960's, ask themselves
the question if (and this was a big if!) if
anyone thought that people could ever accept a 4-D
concept as being real. They knew that SR was
presentable as a 4-D math concept. But they knew
that people did not feel comfortable with 4-D being
anything more than just math.
Many in this group thought that people would never
accept a 4-D concept as being real. But there were a
few professors there who thought that if people were
taught it early enough, they would eventually believe
it. Although many thought that such thoughts were
silly and impossible, they did eventually decide to
try it. They would begin to teach that the 4-D math
concepts of SR were actually real. The results were
slow in coming, but now, at least in words, every SR
expert now says that these 4-D concepts are real.
It was a most interesting experiment, and I
personally find it to be a sign that people are
crazy! At least, they can be made to be crazy! All
it takes is a concerted effort, and people will
believe almost anything.

Thanks again for your thoughts!
Gerald L. O'Barr <***@yahoo.com>
Laurent
2005-09-16 00:14:58 UTC
Permalink
You can't go back to where you were five minutes ago and look at whatever
you were doing, just like you can't go to where you are to be in the next
five minutes. Elementary particles, as well as everything that is a 3D
object in spacetime, exist as objects only during the 'now' moment, there
exists no material past, nor future. Objective reality exists only during
the 'now' moment, before and after that, reality exists as waves, as quantum
matter, in hyperspace.

Objects are waves and particles at the same time, each object is always
accompanied by a quantum matter wave (morphic field). Objective reduction
(state wave collapse) is the process during which objects materialize into
spacetime. Just like the refresh rate of a TV image is needed for us to ne
able to see an image in motion, objects also need a cycling process for us
to be able to perceive material reality as objects moving in space with a
past and a future.

No particle can remain floating in space unchanged or immutable. No process
means no objective reality.

Each particle or object has its own internal clock. For any object to
continue to exist it must always be internally changing and adjusting to
each new position in space, if you stop its internal motion or process, it
will simply disintegrate into quantum matter bits and a very wide radiation
spectrum. The information in their pilot waves (morphic fields) is what
objects need and use in order to continue being what they are; for example,
a neutron only uses the information it needs for it to continue being a
neutron.

Picture the rings that form and spread outwards after you throw a rock in
water, now hit reverse and picture the rings moving inwards, towards the
rock. The rock (particle) represents actuality and the inwardly flowing
waves bring information about the past, as waves being emmited represent its
present state and the past to surrounding objects. The rings (EM waves)
going towards the rock are in reality spherical. It's a concentric wave that
is constantly feeding the particle information (contained in the form of
wave phase) about its inertial frame and environment, as it develops a
trajectory, a time line, according with its relationship to the surrounding
space.

A particle maintains its shape and internal structure, as it moves through
space, by keeping intact the geometrical and energetical relationships that
exist between it and the environment. As process moves forward, particles in
spacetime must continuously reset their geometrical structure and energy
needs, therefore they have to continuously process all kinds of information
in order to continue their existence. They are, in fact, information...
active information. There is no ordered information contained in hyperspace,
just randomly fluctuating quanta, which is ordered as particle/wave systems
move through it.

Quantum matter (ZPR) is picked and organized by concentric waves (morphic
fields) as space is condensed into wave-particle systems. These little bits
of matter are gathered and organized by matter waves, as they are
crystallized or condensed into atoms, molecules, cells... etc. Matter waves
continuously flow inwardly into matter as concentric or spherical waves, as,
at the same time, EMR radiates away from matter, in an exchange of
information about its and the surrounding matter's objective state.

Information about a material system is contained as waves within the system,
it doesn't come from anywhere else in space. The only external information
being brought to the system by waves is the momentum and location of the
particle in relation to the world. And this system must be comprised by a
particle and its particular, inwardly flowing, concentric matter-waves
(morphic fields, pilot waves).

--
Laurent
Bill Hobba
2005-09-15 21:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Einstein's aether - which the aether I mostly talk about - isn't bound by
time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the
aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of fixed laws
by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but non-material
quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and connectedness. We
can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to take
place.
I see Laurent is up to his usual tricks of sprouting buzzwords he does not
understand and trying to fob it off as physical insight. It has been
explained time and time again EPR experiments disprove local realism not
locality.

Rest in same vein mercifully snipped.

Bill
Carlos L
2005-09-15 22:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Einstein's aether -
[...]
Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich
[...]
Thanks Laurent for your work and very nice article about Einstein's
Aether.

The vacuum's zero point fields and fluctuations are also manifestations
of the aether. Since this evidence of a *medium* can not be denied,
some obsolete guardians of the orthodoxy are trying to escape from the
ridicule convincing us that the name "aether" is a technical word
for the "luminiferous medium" that Michelson did not find and that
SR does not need. But (as for example Laurent's quotes show), the word
"aether" has been used in Physics to refer to the all pervading
medium with which it can be expected to make a more unified and richer
description, not only of the speed of light, but also of the
propagation of forces, inertia, etc,... And why should we make a big
deal of the fact that Special Relativity (a specific theory, not the
"theory of everything") does not need to rely on the properties of
an underlying medium to make successful predictions? Thermodynamics is
also a successful theory that does not need to rely on the atomicity of
matter (e.g. on the kinetic theory of gases) to make good predictions.
The "physics establishment" should encourage the work on aether models
instead of hindering the progress of *Fundamental Physics* banning the
aether from their peer reviewed journals and universities.

Thanks again Laurent.
Carlos L
beda pietanza
2005-09-16 11:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos L
Post by Laurent
Einstein's aether -
[...]
Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich
[...]
Thanks Laurent for your work and very nice article about Einstein's
Aether.
The vacuum's zero point fields and fluctuations are also manifestations
of the aether. Since this evidence of a *medium* can not be denied,
some obsolete guardians of the orthodoxy are trying to escape from the
ridicule convincing us that the name "aether" is a technical word
for the "luminiferous medium" that Michelson did not find and that
SR does not need. But (as for example Laurent's quotes show), the word
"aether" has been used in Physics to refer to the all pervading
medium with which it can be expected to make a more unified and richer
description, not only of the speed of light, but also of the
propagation of forces, inertia, etc,... And why should we make a big
deal of the fact that Special Relativity (a specific theory, not the
"theory of everything") does not need to rely on the properties of
an underlying medium to make successful predictions? Thermodynamics is
also a successful theory that does not need to rely on the atomicity of
matter (e.g. on the kinetic theory of gases) to make good predictions.
The "physics establishment" should encourage the work on aether models
instead of hindering the progress of *Fundamental Physics* banning the
aether from their peer reviewed journals and universities.
Thanks again Laurent.
Carlos L
My congratulations, if I may add the success and the distorted use of
relativistic theories lies on the strong drive towards the relativistic
philosophical attitudes.

Relativism is pervading undetected and it is unavoidable, troubles come
when, as in the case of SR, a abusive interpretation of a scientific
achievement furnish a boost to a already unrestrainable human drive.

That is the reason for the Pope, and many others, to worry about: with
the dominance of relativism our morals are groundless.

Best regards

Beda pietanza
beda pietanza
2005-09-16 11:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
See if you can help me:
( you may read my other posts on the subject).

I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.

The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.

What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????

Thanks in any cases.

Regards

Beda pietanza
Laurent
2005-09-16 12:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Laurent
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
Thanks in any cases.
Regards
Beda pietanza
As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is more noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and measuring sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe to the farthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an eye, almost intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is physically impossible - You can't reach the speed limit because as you reach [c], mass and energy tend towards infinity, making it a physical impossibility. Also, when you reach [c], time is supposed to stop, making it impossible to have any process, and a particle devoid of any internal process or time can't exist.

Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making it more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not because it's being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening of the interatomic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets stronger. Mass augments as objects accelerate because their internal fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity, slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a necessity or a requirement, however you want to call it, not because of caused of friction caused by particles as space flows down to earth, as many contend.

--
Laurent

---------------------------------------

Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory

Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary

Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University of Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1

By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de Mécanique de Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France


1. Introduction and summary

The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not really exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic waves, that go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some medium. We may also believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the Casimir effect, suggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties. It has been established by Builder [10-11], Jánossy [20- 21], Prokhovnik [33-34], and others, that the concept of the ether as an inertial frame which should be the carrier of the electromagnetic waves (the Lorentz-Poincaré ether), is fully compatible with Special Relativity (SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41] has recently reestablished, against contrary statements, that the one-way velocity of light cannot be consistently measured - in the absence of any faster information carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhovnik reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincaré ether concept may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes undetectable the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are the physical entities with which the construction starts. It would not be an appropriate answer to recall that, after all, this is the way in which Lorentz, Larmor and Poincaré themselves derived the major part of SR: indeed, this methodological oddness - which is not a logical fault, however - contributed to bring discredit on the ether concept for a long time. Another possible answer would be to insist that, beyond physical concepts, one may still introduce metaphysical ones.

http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------

Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
117 Queen's Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 8NS, Email:***@ic.ac.uk
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005


Abstract

There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the nature of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest energy state of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to equate vacuum energy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that an energy difference from a complete vacuum might have some long range effect, typically this energy difference is interpreted as the cosmological constant. All three approaches are reviewed, with an emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that this review is comprehensive in scope. There is a discussion on whether there is a relation between vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested here to the nature of the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations are presented in support of this position.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------

General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic Dynamics

Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical Physics


Abstract

Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029

-----------------------------------------------------------

THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University of Sunderland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel: 0191 515 2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703

The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day physics began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic world-ether, as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is best thought of as a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which space, time, matter, and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An account of the historical development of this concept is given in the papers of Dr. Kostro, especially those which summarise his researches into the archives of Einstein's later, and often unpublished notes. The history of the ether is a very complex one - more so that the well-known history of Whittaker suggests - and during any period, there have been several concepts, rivalling each other for acceptance. However, one can generalise and say that before the period 1916-1920, matter was regarded as separate from and prior to space, ether and fields. The ether was usually thought of as a medium filling a separate space, and matter (ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space rather like an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of general relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space becomes to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in 1930 Einstein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity), the metrical facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical ones, therefore the notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse together." At this time, Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total field from which elementary particles were created. The "creation" of elementary particles from the physical vacuum is a feature of the theories reviewed below. This notion of Einstein was forshadowed by earlier theories in which matter was a configuration in a universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with particles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann, Pearson ("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are examples. The rise of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development of a comprehensive electromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920, encouraged physicists to interpret particulate, ponderable matter in terms of something more fundamental. The failure to develop adequate ether analogues of matter in the period when relativity became established, together with the failure to detect the ether associated with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success of the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of matter in terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done, Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time, but the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a widespread belief that the ether concept was incompatible with relativity, and the term fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the 1960s, though a minority of physicists - some of them eminent, like Ives, or Dirac - continued to use it. In recent years, a better understanding of the history of this concept, plus the study of the physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a revived interest in the Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in cosmology, and quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamental physics, sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, however, if too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated the very misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove. The ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the geometrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz programme is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods and clocks, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a formal structure which can be given a geometrised expression following Einstein, blinkowski, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In fact, starting with the relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably the best way of introducing any review of the ether in present day physics.

[...]


http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/quantum.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena."

http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html

------------------------------------------------------

Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner


Abstract

A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than Relativity.

http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
d***@hotmail.com
2005-09-16 12:44:05 UTC
Permalink
The deal is that Einstein's Theories of Relativity only come into play
at extreme conditions: high relative velocites, extreme gravitational
fields, etc. For ordinary life for us mortals it's cybernetics that
fuel the day: communication and control between systems and within a
system. You do expeience high velocites, but it's in the information
carrier - photons, not in the systems themselves. Cybernetcists have
discovered the real General Theory of Relativity - how any two systems
relate to each other, not just a few physical parameters of the
Universe, such as mass and inertial and gravity.

Fences up toward the Frost Building need fixing.
b***@libero.it
2005-09-17 22:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Laurent
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
Thanks in any cases.
Regards
Beda pietanza
As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is more noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and measuring sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe to the farthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an eye, almost intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is physically impossible - You can't reach the speed limit because as you reach [c], mass and energy tend towards infinity, making it a physical impossibility. Also, when you reach [c], time is supposed to stop, making it impossible to have any process, and a particle devoid of any internal process or time can't exist.
Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making it more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not because it's being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening of the interatomic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets stronger. Mass augments as objects accelerate because their internal fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity, slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a necessity or a requirement, however you want to call it, not because of caused of friction caused by particles as space flows down to earth, as many contend.
--
Laurent
---------------------------------------
Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory
Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary
Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University of Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1
By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de Mécanique de Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
1. Introduction and summary
The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not really exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic waves, that go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some medium. We may also believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the Casimir effect, suggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties. It has been established by Builder [10-11], Jánossy [20- 21], Prokhovnik [33-34], and others, that the concept of the ether as an inertial frame which should be the carrier of the electromagnetic waves (the Lorentz-Poincaré ether), is fully compatible with Special Relativity (SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41] has recently reestablished, against contrary statements, that the one-way velocity of light cannot be consistently measured - in the absence of any faster information carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhovnik reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincaré ether concept may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes undetectable the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are the physical entities with which the construction starts. It would not be an appropriate answer to recall that, after all, this is the way in which Lorentz, Larmor and Poincaré themselves derived the major part of SR: indeed, this methodological oddness - which is not a logical fault, however - contributed to bring discredit on the ether concept for a long time. Another possible answer would be to insist that, beyond physical concepts, one may still introduce metaphysical ones.
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005
Abstract
There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the nature of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest energy state of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to equate vacuum energy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that an energy difference from a complete vacuum might have some long range effect, typically this energy difference is interpreted as the cosmological constant. All three approaches are reviewed, with an emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that this review is comprehensive in scope. There is a discussion on whether there is a relation between vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested here to the nature of the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations are presented in support of this position.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic Dynamics
Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical Physics
Abstract
Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University of Sunderland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel: 0191 515 2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703
The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day physics began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic world-ether, as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is best thought of as a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which space, time, matter, and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An account of the historical development of this concept is given in the papers of Dr. Kostro, especially those which summarise his researches into the archives of Einstein's later, and often unpublished notes. The history of the ether is a very complex one - more so that the well-known history of Whittaker suggests - and during any period, there have been several concepts, rivalling each other for acceptance. However, one can generalise and say that before the period 1916-1920, matter was regarded as separate from and prior to space, ether and fields. The ether was usually thought of as a medium filling a separate space, and matter (ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space rather like an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of general relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space becomes to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in 1930 Einstein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity), the metrical facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical ones, therefore the notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse together." At this time, Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total field from which elementary particles were created. The "creation" of elementary particles from the physical vacuum is a feature of the theories reviewed below. This notion of Einstein was forshadowed by earlier theories in which matter was a configuration in a universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with particles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann, Pearson ("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are examples. The rise of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development of a comprehensive electromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920, encouraged physicists to interpret particulate, ponderable matter in terms of something more fundamental. The failure to develop adequate ether analogues of matter in the period when relativity became established, together with the failure to detect the ether associated with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success of the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of matter in terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done, Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time, but the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a widespread belief that the ether concept was incompatible with relativity, and the term fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the 1960s, though a minority of physicists - some of them eminent, like Ives, or Dirac - continued to use it. In recent years, a better understanding of the history of this concept, plus the study of the physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a revived interest in the Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in cosmology, and quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamental physics, sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, however, if too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated the very misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove. The ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the geometrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz programme is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods and clocks, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a formal structure which can be given a geometrised expression following Einstein, blinkowski, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In fact, starting with the relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably the best way of introducing any review of the ether in present day physics.
[...]
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/quantum.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena."
http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html
------------------------------------------------------
Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner
Abstract
A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than Relativity.
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
Well, that is just too much for me, I will spent some time to digest
your writings.

If the ether is prior to matter, or coexistent with matter, or a
emanation of matter I don't know, surely though, the ether plays the
part of fixing the local speed of light.

Since SR works even at turtle speed (fixing a adequately low signal
speed, and fixing manually the shortening of rulers and the dilated
time rate of clocks).

Since GR is reproducible substituting the curvature of space-time with
the trivial attractive gravity force in a 3D space.

SR and GR are just geometrical model, nothing physical.

All comes back to straight common sense and I am happy.

Thank you again for your great help,

May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable
speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we
reached in labs ? And what are the
maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??

Best regards

Beda pietanza
Ole D. Rughede
2005-09-18 00:12:41 UTC
Permalink
May I suggest you have a look at Einstein's lambda-term, which is
neither cosmologic, since GTR can be applied only to a final space, nor
a constant, since it represents the aether parameters of black body
radiation (filling all of the final space in consideration). Hence
lambda is a variable depending on the energy density of the
aether-space, thereby of the local temperature T(Aether), thus being the
real salvation for any solution to be derived by GTR.

The lambda-term therefore rightly should be named and discussed as "The
Aether-Variable of GTR".

Ole D. Rughede
Post by Laurent
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Laurent
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
Thanks in any cases.
Regards
Beda pietanza
As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is
more noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and
measuring sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe
to the farthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an
eye, almost intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is
physically impossible - You can't reach the speed limit because as you
reach [c], mass and energy tend towards infinity, making it a physical
impossibility. Also, when you reach [c], time is supposed to stop,
making it impossible to have any process, and a particle devoid of any
internal process or time can't exist.
Post by Laurent
Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making
it more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not
because it's being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening
of the interatomic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets
stronger. Mass augments as objects accelerate because their internal
fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity,
slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a
necessity or a requirement, however you want to call it, not because of
caused of friction caused by particles as space flows down to earth, as
many contend.
Post by Laurent
--
Laurent
---------------------------------------
Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory
Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of
Relativity Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary
Post by Laurent
Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University
of Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1
Post by Laurent
By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de Mécanique de Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
1. Introduction and summary
The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not
really exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic
waves, that go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some
medium. We may also believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the
Casimir effect, suggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties.
It has been established by Builder [10-11], Jánossy [20- 21], Prokhovnik
[33-34], and others, that the concept of the ether as an inertial frame
which should be the carrier of the electromagnetic waves (the
Lorentz-Poincaré ether), is fully compatible with Special Relativity
(SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41] has recently reestablished,
against contrary statements, that the one-way velocity of light cannot
be consistently measured - in the absence of any faster information
carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhovnik
reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincaré ether concept
may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes
undetectable the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are
the physical entities with which the construction starts. It would not
be an appropriate answer to recall that, after all, this is the way in
which Lorentz, Larmor and Poincaré themselves derived the major part of
SR: indeed, this methodological oddness - which is not a logical fault,
however - contributed to bring discredit on the ether concept for a long
time. Another possible answer would be to insist that, beyond physical
concepts, one may still introduce metaphysical ones.
Post by Laurent
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005
Abstract
There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the
nature of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest
energy state of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to
equate vacuum energy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that
an energy difference from a complete vacuum might have some long range
effect, typically this energy difference is interpreted as the
cosmological constant. All three approaches are reviewed, with an
emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that this review is comprehensive
in scope. There is a discussion on whether there is a relation between
vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested here to the nature of
the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects
because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no
overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of
higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations
are presented in support of this position.
Post by Laurent
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic
Dynamics
Post by Laurent
Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical Physics
Abstract
Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic
physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is
based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum.
Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed,
expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General
Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy
and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the
substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.
Post by Laurent
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University
of Sunderland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel:
0191 515 2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703
Post by Laurent
The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day
physics began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic
world-ether, as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is
best thought of as a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which
space, time, matter, and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An
account of the historical development of this concept is given in the
papers of Dr. Kostro, especially those which summarise his researches
into the archives of Einstein's later, and often unpublished notes. The
history of the ether is a very complex one - more so that the well-known
history of Whittaker suggests - and during any period, there have been
several concepts, rivalling each other for acceptance. However, one can
generalise and say that before the period 1916-1920, matter was regarded
as separate from and prior to space, ether and fields. The ether was
usually thought of as a medium filling a separate space, and matter
(ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space rather like
an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of general
relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space
becomes to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in
1930 Einstein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity),
the metrical facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical
ones, therefore the notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse
together." At this time, Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total
field from which elementary particles were created. The "creation" of
elementary particles from the physical vacuum is a feature of the
theories reviewed below. This notion of Einstein was forshadowed by
earlier theories in which matter was a configuration in a
universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with
particles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann,
Pearson ("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are
examples. The rise of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development
of a comprehensive electromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920,
encouraged physicists to interpret particulate, ponderable matter in
terms of something more fundamental. The failure to develop adequate
ether analogues of matter in the period when relativity became
established, together with the failure to detect the ether associated
with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success of the Special
Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of matter in
terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done,
Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time,
but the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a
widespread belief that the ether concept was incompatible with
relativity, and the term fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the
1960s, though a minority of physicists - some of them eminent, like
Ives, or Dirac - continued to use it. In recent years, a better
understanding of the history of this concept, plus the study of the
physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a revived interest in the
Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in cosmology, and
quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamental physics,
sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, however, if
too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated the very
misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove. The
ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the
geometrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz
programme is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods
and clocks, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a
formal structure which can be given a geometrised expression following
Einstein, blinkowski, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In
fact, starting with the relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably
the best way of introducing any review of the ether in present day
physics.
Post by Laurent
[...]
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/quantum.htm
Post by Laurent
-------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with
you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as
does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not
violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state
[...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an
independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function
of position determined through the metrical phenomena."
Post by Laurent
http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html
------------------------------------------------------
Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner
Abstract
A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental
results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of
gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than
Relativity.
Post by Laurent
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
Well, that is just too much for me, I will spent some time to digest
your writings.

If the ether is prior to matter, or coexistent with matter, or a
emanation of matter I don't know, surely though, the ether plays the
part of fixing the local speed of light.

Since SR works even at turtle speed (fixing a adequately low signal
speed, and fixing manually the shortening of rulers and the dilated
time rate of clocks).

Since GR is reproducible substituting the curvature of space-time with
the trivial attractive gravity force in a 3D space.

SR and GR are just geometrical model, nothing physical.

All comes back to straight common sense and I am happy.

Thank you again for your great help,

May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable
speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we
reached in labs ? And what are the
maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??

Best regards

Beda pietanza
Laurent
2005-09-18 16:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Post by beda pietanza
Post by Laurent
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
( you may read my other posts on the subject).
I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.
The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.
What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????
Thanks in any cases.
Regards
Beda pietanza
As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is more noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and measuring sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe to the farthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an eye, almost intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is physically impossible - You can't reach the speed limit because as you reach [c], mass and energy tend towards infinity, making it a physical impossibility. Also, when you reach [c], time is supposed to stop, making it impossible to have any process, and a particle devoid of any internal process or time can't exist.
Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making it more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not because it's being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening of the interatomic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets stronger. Mass augments as objects accelerate because their internal fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity, slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a necessity or a requirement, however you want to call it, not because of caused of friction caused by particles as space flows down to earth, as many contend.
--
Laurent
---------------------------------------
Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory
Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary
Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University of Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1
By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de Mécanique de Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
1. Introduction and summary
The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not really exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic waves, that go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some medium. We may also believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the Casimir effect, suggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties. It has been established by Builder [10-11], Jánossy [20- 21], Prokhovnik [33-34], and others, that the concept of the ether as an inertial frame which should be the carrier of the electromagnetic waves (the Lorentz-Poincaré ether), is fully compatible with Special Relativity (SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41] has recently reestablished, against contrary statements, that the one-way velocity of light cannot be consistently measured - in the absence of any faster information carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhovnik reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincaré ether concept may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes undetectable the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are the physical entities with which the construction starts. It would not be an appropriate answer to recall that, after all, this is the way in which Lorentz, Larmor and Poincaré themselves derived the major part of SR: indeed, this methodological oddness - which is not a logical fault, however - contributed to bring discredit on the ether concept for a long time. Another possible answer would be to insist that, beyond physical concepts, one may still introduce metaphysical ones.
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005
Abstract
There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the nature of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest energy state of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to equate vacuum energy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that an energy difference from a complete vacuum might have some long range effect, typically this energy difference is interpreted as the cosmological constant. All three approaches are reviewed, with an emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that this review is comprehensive in scope. There is a discussion on whether there is a relation between vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested here to the nature of the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations are presented in support of this position.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------
General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic Dynamics
Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical Physics
Abstract
Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University of Sunderland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel: 0191 515 2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703
The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day physics began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic world-ether, as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is best thought of as a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which space, time, matter, and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An account of the historical development of this concept is given in the papers of Dr. Kostro, especially those which summarise his researches into the archives of Einstein's later, and often unpublished notes. The history of the ether is a very complex one - more so that the well-known history of Whittaker suggests - and during any period, there have been several concepts, rivalling each other for acceptance. However, one can generalise and say that before the period 1916-1920, matter was regarded as separate from and prior to space, ether and fields. The ether was usually thought of as a medium filling a separate space, and matter (ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space rather like an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of general relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space becomes to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in 1930 Einstein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity), the metrical facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical ones, therefore the notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse together." At this time, Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total field from which elementary particles were created. The "creation" of elementary particles from the physical vacuum is a feature of the theories reviewed below. This notion of Einstein was forshadowed by earlier theories in which matter was a configuration in a universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with particles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann, Pearson ("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are examples. The rise of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development of a comprehensive electromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920, encouraged physicists to interpret particulate, ponderable matter in terms of something more fundamental. The failure to develop adequate ether analogues of matter in the period when relativity became established, together with the failure to detect the ether associated with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success of the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of matter in terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done, Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time, but the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a widespread belief that the ether concept was incompatible with relativity, and the term fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the 1960s, though a minority of physicists - some of them eminent, like Ives, or Dirac - continued to use it. In recent years, a better understanding of the history of this concept, plus the study of the physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a revived interest in the Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in cosmology, and quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamental physics, sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, however, if too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated the very misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove. The ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the geometrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz programme is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods and clocks, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a formal structure which can be given a geometrised expression following Einstein, blinkowski, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In fact, starting with the relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably the best way of introducing any review of the ether in present day physics.
[...]
http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/news/Philosophy_of_Science/quantum.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena."
http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html
------------------------------------------------------
Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner
Abstract
A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than Relativity.
http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
Well, that is just too much for me, I will spent some time to digest
your writings.

If the ether is prior to matter, or coexistent with matter, or a
emanation of matter I don't know, surely though, the ether plays the
part of fixing the local speed of light.

Since SR works even at turtle speed (fixing a adequately low signal
speed, and fixing manually the shortening of rulers and the dilated
time rate of clocks).

Since GR is reproducible substituting the curvature of space-time with
the trivial attractive gravity force in a 3D space.

SR and GR are just geometrical model, nothing physical.

All comes back to straight common sense and I am happy.

Thank you again for your great help,

May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable
speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we
reached in labs ? And what are the
maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??

Best regards

Beda pietanza

---------------------------------------------
Post by Laurent
"May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we reached in labs ? And what are the maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??"
I don't know, but I'm sure these are all answered in several text books and websites, search it.

The reason there is covariance is because the speed of fields must remain constant for proportions to remain constant. As objects accelerate, their internal fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity (mass), slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a necessity, or a requirement, however you want to call it.

--
Laurent

--------------------------------------------------------

"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales

--------------------------------------------------------

[quote from " Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics "
by John C. Baez, as it appeared on the book " Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale " by Craig Callender and Nick Nugget]

"...quantum field theory says that associated with any mass m there
is a length called its Compton wavelength, lc, such that determining
the position of a particle of mass m to within one Compton
wavelength requires enough energy to create another particle of that
mass. Particle creation is a quintessentially
quantum-field-theoretic phenomenon. Thus, we may say that the
Compton wavelength sets the distance scale at which quantum field
theory becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a particle
of a given mass. On the other hand, general relativity says that
associated to any mass m there is a length called the Schwarzschild
radius, ls, such that compressing an object of mass m to a size
smaller than this results in the formation of a black hole. The
Schwarzschild radius is roughly the distance scale at which general
relativity becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a
given mass. Now, ignoring some numerical factors, we have:

lc = hbar/mc

and

ls = Gm/c^2

These two lengths become equal when m is the Planck mass. And when
this happens, they both equal the Planck length! " --- John C. Baez
beda pietanza
2005-09-20 14:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurent
Post by Laurent
Post by Laurent
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
"May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we reached in labs ? And what are the maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??"
I don't know, but I'm sure these are all answered in several text books and websites, search it.
I'll keep searching, I got a answer about a plastic object been shot
at the speed of 90 miles/s.
Post by Laurent
The reason there is covariance is because the speed of fields must remain constant for proportions to remain constant. As objects accelerate, their internal fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity (mass), slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a necessity, or a requirement, however you want to call it.
I agree on your explanation of the "real physical" shortening of
material rulers and dilating of time rate of clocks.

When I mention macroscopic bodies conserving their structure, I don't
mean their conserving their apparent physical dimensions, I mean,
instead, the inter atomic structure which, I am proposing the
hypothesis, would be destroyed once the macroscopic body reach a speed
limit (a small fraction of C).
Post by Laurent
Post by Laurent
Post by Laurent
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
We seem to agree, also, on the on the (far lower than C) speed limit
for macroscopic bodies hypothesis, yet we may never know what these
limits are.

Regards

Beda pietanza




Regards

Beda pietanza
Post by Laurent
--
Laurent
--------------------------------------------------------
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
--------------------------------------------------------
[quote from " Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics "
by John C. Baez, as it appeared on the book " Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale " by Craig Callender and Nick Nugget]
"...quantum field theory says that associated with any mass m there
is a length called its Compton wavelength, lc, such that determining
the position of a particle of mass m to within one Compton
wavelength requires enough energy to create another particle of that
mass. Particle creation is a quintessentially
quantum-field-theoretic phenomenon. Thus, we may say that the
Compton wavelength sets the distance scale at which quantum field
theory becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a particle
of a given mass. On the other hand, general relativity says that
associated to any mass m there is a length called the Schwarzschild
radius, ls, such that compressing an object of mass m to a size
smaller than this results in the formation of a black hole. The
Schwarzschild radius is roughly the distance scale at which general
relativity becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a
lc = hbar/mc
and
ls = Gm/c^2
These two lengths become equal when m is the Planck mass. And when
this happens, they both equal the Planck length! " --- John C. Baez
Ole D. Rughede
2005-09-16 13:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Excellent presentation. Thank you Laurent!

To deny the aether is a refusal of facts.
The aether is radiant energi. More specific:

The Aether is the radiant energy filling all of space, enduringly
supplied as radiation from all astrophysical objects. The aether
is characterized by its specific energy U erg and energy density
u = U/V erg/cm^3 of temperature T(Aether) Kelvin. It exerts
a pressure p = u/3 dyn, and its entropy is S = 4U/3T erg/K.

Since u/T^4 is constant, neither the energy U varies isotermic,
nor the temperature T adiabatic. The aether therefore is a pure
bosongas of Gibbs potential = 0 and chemical potential my = 0.

Because the distant observational limit i astrophysics radiates
isotropic in all directions as the inside cavity of a black body
at temperature T(CMBR) = 2.735 +/- 0.06 K, T(CMBR) is
lowest possible natural temperature to ever be observed in the
universe. To reach the absolute temperature T = 0 K would
cost all the mass-energy in the universe. But since T(CMBR)
indicates that the universe is immeasurable, and of a magnitude
far beyond the observational limit, meaning in fact infinite, and
therefore eternal, we have to restrict ourselves to the physics
of final space according to the physical laws which have been
in existence long before the appearance of mankind.

Hence the laws of physics rightly may be considered given by
God as eternal Creator and Maintainant of all created and all
creatures. A concept completely outside the physical sciences,
why any speculation and ridicule hypothesis about the creation
of the universe is out of scientific question and must be left to
the considerations of philosophers and theologians.

When further these physical concepts regarding the aether
lead to simple and consistent physical descriptions, such as
in my latest communication, Aetherphysics, Quantumgravity,
to these newsgroups *), it is only a question of time before
we will see the convenience and the full acceptance thereof.
*) sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.physics.relativity.

The historic ideas and the remarkable scientific achievements,
which led to our present view, are, though most interesting, not
relevant to the theoretical sciences at present level, but may at
best serve to some critical and perhaps fruitful thoughts about
the so hard needed physics of the aether, which is necessesary
to the understanding and description of the ongoing creation
we observe, for instance in formation of new stars and galaxies.

When the 2. law of Thermodynamics refers only to finite systems
and irreversible processes - but galactic space is infinite, and the
radiant processes of aether energy exchance are reversible - we
seem to need some augmentations in thermodynamics to fully
describe the observed astrophysical processes of phase-shifts
of matter and radiation in the eternal creations of the universe.

As seen to me, we may speak of a multitude of created worlds,
where worlds and galaxies would be synonyms in cosmology.
The aether, however, of only one single eternally persiting entity
mediating all physical fields, forces, and processes.

Speaking of space, we in fact mean the not empty aether-space
of every thinkable geometry and dynamics, where local energy
density and local aether temperature is of greatest importance.

Best regards, Ole
Post by Laurent
Einstein's aether - which the aether I mostly talk about - isn't bound by
time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the
aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of fixed laws
by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but
non-material
Post by Laurent
quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and
connectedness. We
Post by Laurent
can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space.
Aether is what allows EPR (non-local communication) type phenomena to take
place.
Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real but
non-material ratios which often help determine Lorentz invariant geometrical
properties of objects. Take the fine structure constant for example, change
its value and you get a totally different universe.
Quantum phenomena are caused by fractal topological defects embedded in and
forming a growing three-dimensional fractal process-space, which is
essentially a quantum foam.
"Topological space (aether) can be defined as a set with a collection of
subsets satisfying the conditions that both the empty set and the set itself
belong to the collection, the union of any number of the subsets is also an
element of the collection, and the intersection of any finite number of the
subsets is an element of the collection." -- Webster dictionary
Even Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to
topological
Post by Laurent
quantum field theory.
" But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an
intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the
ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all
mechanical
Post by Laurent
and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and
electromagnetic) events. "
" 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
[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra and
Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at
the Planck Scale"]
***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the
passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change. "***
" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric.
"
" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving
mathematical
Post by Laurent
physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be
perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge
if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics
that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the
process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome
in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state'
are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of
'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for
mathematical
Post by Laurent
physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply.
" -------- John Baez
"When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most
important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we should and
should not be considering. Containment principles, already well known in
cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g., "The physical
universe contains all and only that which is physical." The predicate
"physical", like all predicates, here corresponds to a structured set, "the
physical universe" (because the universe has structure and contains objects,
it is a structured set). But this usage of tautology is somewhat loose, for
it technically amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of
propositional
Post by Laurent
tautology called autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the
predicate physical is being defined on topological containment in the
physical universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively contained
in the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of "physical" is a
two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive
containment.
Post by Laurent
While this principle, which we might regard as a statement of
"physicalism",
Post by Laurent
is often confused with materialism on the grounds that "physical" equals
"material", the material may in fact be only a part of what makes up the
physical. Similarly, the physical may only be a part of what makes up the
real. Because the content of reality is a matter of science as opposed to
mere semantics, this issue can be resolved only by rational or
empirical
Post by Laurent
evidence, not by assumption alone." -------- Christopher Michael Langan
http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.html
---------------------------------------------------------
There isn't a change in the incoming flux of quantum matter (ZPR, material
space, Guth's 'false vacuum') as much as there is a change in the
information processing, or more simply said, a change in process speed.
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be
proportianally
Post by Laurent
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.
To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.
--
Laurent
--------------------------------------------------------
Some say the aether concept was already discredited, but they are wrong,
Einstein and the Ether - by Ludwik Kostro
(Apeiron, Montreal, 2000)
"Whether gravitational, electrical, and nuclear interactions can be
encompassed within a unified theoretical structure, and whether such a
structure will be conceived as a plenary space with physical
properties,
Post by Laurent
remains to be seen. But if the history of the successive dynasties of aether
The luminiferous aether is dead!
Long live the aether!" --- Owen Gingerich
Nowadays, nobody talks any longer about the ether in scientific ortohodox
books, in higher school or university classes, etc., yet this concept has
been one of the corner stones of many rational interpretation of natural
phenomena for a great long time - to such an extent that a good physicist
recently wrote to us that all XIXth century physics tried to "prove the
existence of the ether which was later proved not to exist".
If we ask why the ether has disappeared from the major scenes of our
knowledge of Nature, everybody will answer that Einstein has proved, with
his celebrated theory of relativity, that the ether does not exist. This was
one of those concepts that old physicists were accustomed to use in their
"primitive" speculations, but today, luckily, it has been completely
overthrown, together with other similar relics of "superstition", by XXth
century scientists. It was in that time that mankind has realized the
greatest achievements of ever in science and technology, which can be
interpreted as the goal of a long walk, that began thanks to such men like
Copernic, Galilei, Descartes, Newton,... just sprung out from the darkness
of Middle Ages.
"common people", and even the "common scientist", would be surprised in
reading this book (about 240 pp.), written by the physicist and philosopher
Ludwik Kostro, and intended for physicists as well as for historians of
science, philosophers, or in general for any people interested in the
development of scientific culture. As a matter of fact, it is entirely
dedicated to the troublesome relationships between the greatest scientist of
all times - or at least many people think so! - and the elusive ether.
"In the eyes of most physicists and philosophers, Albert Einstein has
acquired a reputation for abolishing the concept of the ether as a medium
filling space (or identified with it), which was responsible for carrying
electromagnetic, gravitational and other interactions. Today, this notion is
echoed in textbooks, encyclopaedias, and scientific reviews. However, it
does not fully reflect the historical truth, and in a sense even represents
a distortion [...] Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11
years - from 1905 to 1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was
too radical and even regretted that his works published before 1916 had so
definitely and absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."
The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions which
Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is
therefore
Post by Laurent
full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up to the point
of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special appendix). Here
"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier
publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether
velocity,
Post by Laurent
instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that
with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as
a carrier of physical qualities."
" [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak
about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we
will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to
assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states.
[...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties,
i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case
according to
Post by Laurent
special relativity [...] ".
"This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development if
science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by
relativity
Post by Laurent
theory."
It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein, where
he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to say, the
necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but endowed with
"There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the ether. To
deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all
physical properties to empty space."
"The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is mostly a
latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."
----------------------------------------------------------------
From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)
" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour
of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that
empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of
mechanics do not harmonize with this view. --- *For the mechanical behaviour
of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on
relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its
state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not
appertaining to the system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look upon
the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton
objectivises space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with
real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space
"Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable
objects, ---
Post by Laurent
*another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real,* ---
to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which
is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean
acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in
place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But
inertial
Post by Laurent
resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses
presupposes
Post by Laurent
action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he
may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows
Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.
But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of
thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by
Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the
behaviour of
Post by Laurent
inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of
relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum
of space-time differ in the environment of different points of
space-time,
Post by Laurent
and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory
under consideration.
(Which means that all points in space are interconnected) -- Laurent
This spacetime variability of the reciprocal relations of the
standards of
Post by Laurent
space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space
" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling
us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials
g[greek subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has
again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely
from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of
light. ---
Post by Laurent
*The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine
mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.*
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity
as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, --- *that the state of
the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and
the state of the ether in neighbouring places,* --- which are amenable to
law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the
Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is
conditioned by
Post by Laurent
nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if
we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the
former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the
outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "
[...]
" ...when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into
harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of
theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the
theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its
mechanical,
Post by Laurent
and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in
the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed
atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According
to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying
out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the
carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all
electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.
As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it,
in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical
property of which it has not been deprived by H, A. Lorentz. It may be added
that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether
its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. " ---- Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------
Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific "A
"As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of the
nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth, chiefly as
result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to
the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such attempts must
always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour, and it became customary
to refer to the interplanetary spaces as "vacuous"; the vacuum being
conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except that of propagating
electromagnetic waves. But with the development of quantum
electrodynamics,
Post by Laurent
the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point"
oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point"
fluctuations
Post by Laurent
of electric charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a
dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name
"vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the
historical
Post by Laurent
word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T. Whittaker
-----------------------------------
In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said -
"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its
capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future." --- P.
Dirac
-----------------------------------
The science popularizer Zukav writes -
"Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles are
excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the vacuum
state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high symmetry that
we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ---- G. Zukav
-----------------------------------
The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states -
"This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been
extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions, each
type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these 'quantum field
theories', the classical contrast between the solid particles and the space
surrounding them is completely overcome. The quantum field is seen as the
fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium which is present everywhere
in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field;
concentrations of energy which come and go, thereby losing their individual
character and dissolving into the underlying field. In the words of Albert
" We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of
space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in this
new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only
reality. " (page 210)
--------------------------------------------------------
And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of what
"Of elements."
"Are there then four" he asked.
"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."
"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water and air
and earth and fire?"
"There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the stuff
of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so
do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."
Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas
"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."
"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living
creature?"
Post by Laurent
"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it
engenders all living things."
- The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of
quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific
plausibility of
Post by Laurent
aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of
present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by
relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
. . .
We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
mechanics and conformable to relativity, provided we are willing to consider
a perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the
experimental point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this.
We must make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the
vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather
forced to have an aether."
---- P. A. M. Dirac,
"Is There an Aether?"
Nature 168 (1951): 906-7.
----------------------------------------------------------
"...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action
and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused
by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this
agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my
readers." --- Isaac Newton
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...