| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Laurent" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2003 03:13:46 PM |
| Object: |
CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
According to Timothy Boyer, the CMBR (space) is constituted by al
least two different spectrums. One is noisy and expanding, while the
other is self-organized and condensing. One exhibits negative
gravitation, the other positive gravitation. From one space is
created, from the other, matter. Matter waves are contantly flowing
inwards into matter, while heat and light flow away from matter.
There is a continuos condensation and expansion of the substrate
(CMBR) taking place.
Space is made from two types of particles, one which resists
compression, or exhibits negative-gravitation (thermal radiation,
light), and the other which is infinitely compressible and exhibits
positive-gravitation (zero-point radiation, dark matter).
Boyer described the ZPR as fundamental to space, and thermal
radiation as a product generated by the motion of ZPR particles.
Which in turn were buffeted back into motion by this thermal
radiation which they themselves had produced, providing the basis
for a perpetual motion system, and solving the riddle of infinite
energies coming from space. [See Puthoff, Haisch and Rueda's papers]
Now, if space is made from particles, then it may be subject to
changes in pressure and density, like a gas. Therefore, if space
particles (dark matter), carried by matter waves, continuously
condense into material objects, that would mean that the closer you
get to the object the denser the space would be, as a function of
the object's mass and radius, explaining why gravitic pressure obeys
the inverse square law.
Space particles (dark matter) are carried by matter selective
inwardly flowing photons in an electrical current. Just like
electrons are moved by an electromotive force.
The gravitational field is continuos, what is quantized by
matter-waves is the CMBR. As the CMBR spins and cuts the
gravitational field in a circular motion, there is a friction which
creates matter-waves or inwardly flowing photons - just as
electromagnetic waves (photons) are created when you shake an
electron. This photons are moved by a force perpendicular to the
direction of rotation, inwardly carrying CMBR particles to the
center of the system. This quantization depends on the
characteristics of the matter-waves, which in turn depend on the
characteristics of the rotating material body. This model can
explain why some planets have greater concentrations of different
elements than others.
-----------------------------------------
I agree with most of what CMBR etherists say, but I think we still
need an immaterial aether which serves as the seat for the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields, a medium which helps
determine ratios like permittivity and permeability AND the
propagation vector of fields and light rays.
Einstein's relativistic aether is physical, but not material. It is
Newton's absolute space mixed with Mach's aether. It's an aether
enbued with physical properties that help determine the formation
and structure of fields, and where space is a product dependent on
the existence of matter.
Einstein presented a different concept in his 1920 essay "Ether
and the Theory of Relativity". What he termed the 'gravitational
ether' or the 'relativistic ether' came from a completely different
idea. Motion and particulation can't be applied as properties to
Einstein's aether.
Einstein said that matter and fields are made from the same basic
substance, and since, to me, space is synonymous to fields, then it
follows that matter and space are also made from the same basic
substance.
Matter is a product of the aether, and because the aether is
immaterial, it can't be quantized. The aether is before spacetime.
Einstein was correct in his claim of a background free universe, the
aether can't even be called a reference frame, it isn't material and
it lacks any landmarks. But Einstein himself said it (1920), it is a
physical but immaterial substratum, the seat to all fields, and he
called it the gravitational aether, or the relativistic aether.
Reality doesn't pop up because of tensor math, the math is only one
of the tools we use to describe it. A field can't come into
existence
getting its energy out of nothingness.
For reality to take place all physical laws must remain constant,
independently from the inertial frame, and because the aether is
physically finite, there must be space contractions and time
dilations in relation to slower moving inertial frames. Even though
proportions are kept, dimensions are constantly adjusted to fit the
inertial frame.
------------------------------------------
Existence starts with the field, and before that there is the
aether.
In a space full of bodies, field geometry depends on the spacetime
geometry as well as on the aether's electromagnetic properties. If
there were only one field, its geometry would be wholly determined
from the aether.
In Einstein's GTR space is 4-dimensional (spacetime), 3D space does
not exist as such. You take time and motion out of the theory and
you are left with Einstein's relativistic aether, which is not the
same as Newton's absolute 3D space.
--------------------------------------------
If space were primary, then spatial extensions couldn't be variable,
and that's what is claimed with Relativity, space-like separations
are supposed to be relative.
---------------------------------------------
How could a non-material aether represent a preferred frame if it
lacks any landmarks or coordinates?
---------------------------------------------
John Dobson asks - "Must we assume that in the absence of particles
and fields, and in the absence of space and time, there would be
nothing?"
And I ask, can space exist independently from matter? Is space
primary, not derivable from anything else, non-reducible, or is it a
product?
Is space real? I mean, if you were the only particle in space, how
could you tell if you were spinning, accelerating, or even worst,
how would you know how much space is out there, beyond your own
perimeter? There are some very ancient Eastern teachings in relation
to the meaning and definition of space. Remember, you can only call
space that which is contained.
Nothingness does not exist, that is also a very ancient teaching.
The aether is dimensionless, it is before geometry. Spacetime and
geometrization come after the aether. Aether is primary. Matter,
energy, space and time are not. The aether is changeless and eternal
because it is not bounded by the physical laws of spacetime.
Some go into mental shock when I describe a thing which is
immaterial and unobservable, then turn around and promote the
existence of space as such. As if space were here before matter and
could exist independently from the Universe. Isn't the classical
vacuum also immaterial and unobservable?
Others claim that space has no physical properties but if you
eliminate the notions of e0 and m0 (which represent the density and
elasticity of the medium) from Maxwell and Einstein's theories they
fall appart.
They believe in the reality of nothingness, and that, they'll have
to admit, sounds just a little idiotic. Yet they accept that notion
as an integral part of their physics... (just as I accept the aether
as integral part of mine.)
They believe that space as such is real, but can't even ascribe to
it any physical properties. At least Einstein's aether is real
BECAUSE of its physical nature.
All you need to be physical is to be able to act as a force. To be
real there is no need for dimensions or a geometry.
We need to think of the vacuum as a physical but immaterial
substance. Einstein called it the gravitational or the relativistic
aether.
Einstein's relativistic aether is physical, but not material. It is
Newton's absolute space mixed with Mach's aether. It's an aether
enbued with physical properties that help determine the formation
and structure of fields, and where space is a product dependent on
the existence of matter.
Physical because it helps determine ratios like the permittivity and
permeability of free space. Ratios on which the existence and
behaviour of all fields entirely depend, without fields you can't
have any type of matter/particle.
Immaterial because it lacks properties like extension or motion - it
does not move and it has no parts or components in the material
sense.
To exist it must be in spacetime, and the aether is not in
spacetime, so it doesn't exist, but it is, and because of this, it
is eternal, or not subject to process or time.
In Einstein's view your 'perfectly flat balanced vacuum state' does
not move, but helps determine ratios like permittivity, permeability
and the propagation vector of fields and light rays.
Einstein's space is 4-dimensional, time is included in the structure
of space, that's why he termed it spacetime.
Field structure depends on the properties of objects in spacetime as
much as on the electromagnetic properties of the aether.
Einstein said that matter and fields are made from the same basic
substance, and since, to me, space is synonymous to fields, then it
follows that matter and space are also made from the same basic
substance.
There can't be a Universe without an aether. The aether is the seat
to the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and without fields
there can't be matter or space.
--
Laurent
_____________________________________
<< Such was the state of things 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. >> --- A. Einstein
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
31 Aug 2003 06:58:23 PM |
|
|
Laurent
GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out? You bet it
can. Can the aether of LET? No. See the difference?
BTW SR applies to inertial reference frames that conceptually have the
background radiation screened out. LET applies to frames whose aether in
principle can not be removed. Indeed it is required for the theory to work.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
31 Aug 2003 09:53:55 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f528ac0_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Laurent
GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians
trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty);
smoothout
spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out?
You bet it
can. Can the aether of LET? No. See the difference?
BTW SR applies to inertial reference frames that conceptually have
the
background radiation screened out. LET applies to frames whose
aether in
principle can not be removed. Indeed it is required for the
theory to work.
Thanks
Bill
Right. That's basically what Einstein said.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
31 Aug 2003 10:52:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:58:23 +1000, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
Laurent
GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out?
You bet it can. ...
Can you cite an experiment that tested this? Just one please...
... Can the aether of LET? No. See the difference?
No... You're comparing apples to oranges...
BTW SR applies to inertial reference frames that conceptually have
the background radiation screened out. LET applies to frames whose
aether in principle can not be removed. Indeed it is required for
the theory to work.
Yeah, and your point is???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
01 Sep 2003 01:19:23 PM |
|
|
pstowe@ix.netcom.com:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:58:23 +1000, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
Laurent
GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out?
You bet it can. ...
Can you cite an experiment that tested this? Just one please...
Ever seen a faraday cage? 2.7 K corresponds to 56 GHz, which is
a wavelength of 5 mm. The only reason to publish an article about
shielding 56 GHz with a faraday cage would be if it didn't work.
While I haven't considered the entire planck distribution, it
shouldn't be hard to guess the size of the mesh required to
shield higher (or lower) frequencies, since it's approximately
proportional to the wavelength. This is a property of conductors.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
01 Sep 2003 09:25:36 AM |
|
|
<pstowe@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:l1g5lvctu7qqonpej9mphp3j33k6ce0qud@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:58:23 +1000, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
Laurent
GTR is an idealization of reality, a method, a mathematicians trick
to eliminate all local degrees of freedom (uncertainty); smoothout
spacetime, and you get theories like Relativity, String Theory,
TQFT... to work. But there really is a background of cosmic
radiation (CMBR) without which space can't exist (A. Guth).
Sure background radiation exists. But can it be screened out?
You bet it can. ...
Can you cite an experiment that tested this? Just one please...
Every metal box you can imagine.
It hasn't been done?
Can you cite an experiment that tested whether
*you* fall down when we drop *you* from a
tower?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
01 Sep 2003 08:00:39 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Every metal box you can imagine.
It hasn't been done?
Can you cite an experiment that tested whether
*you* fall down when we drop *you* from a
tower?
Thanks Dirk; saves me the trouble. I wish these guys would learn a little
electromagnetic theory.
Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light traveled;
not a form of light itself which is what the background radiation is.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
02 Sep 2003 11:34:52 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f53ead6$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Every metal box you can imagine.
It hasn't been done?
Can you cite an experiment that tested whether
*you* fall down when we drop *you* from a
tower?
Thanks Dirk; saves me the trouble. I wish these guys would learn
a little
electromagnetic theory.
Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light
traveled;
not a form of light itself which is what the background radiation
is.
Thanks
Bill
Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all fields,
including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial.
First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
02 Sep 2003 08:11:36 PM |
|
|
Laurent
Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all fields,
including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial.
First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
The aether of Einstein? Not sure there is such a thing. Neither SR or Gr
requires one. Although of course it does not rule out one. But then you
would have Occams razor to worry about.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
04 Sep 2003 11:40:51 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f553ee2$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Laurent
Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all
fields,
including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but
immaterial.
First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
The aether of Einstein? Not sure there is such a thing.
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it spacetime.
There is no space as such, therefore no preferred frame or absolute
frame. His aether is NOT a material reference frame. In Einstein's
view, we have a background free Universe, in the material sense.
Fields, not the aether, are seen as synonymous to spacetime.
--
Laurent
------------------------------------------------
<< The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of
relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the
electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the
conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from
the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of
co-ordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest,
the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to
K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations
without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new
system of co-ordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation
relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question: Why must I in the
theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are
physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the
ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician
such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no
corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable.
If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion
relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me
from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but
nevertheless inacceptable. >>
[...]
<< 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. >>
[...]
<< If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic
field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a
remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any
part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer
upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be
imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is
inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand
a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic
field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the
electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the
ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet
in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the
present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as
opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new
formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the
gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example,
with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the
electromagnetic type.
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than
condensations of the electromagnctic field, our present view of the
universe presents two realities which are completely separated from
each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely,
gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also
be called space and matter. >>
[...]
<< 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. >> --- Einstein, 1920
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
-------------------------------------------------
<< Finally, concerning space having intrinsic reality in the absence
of a defining field, consider the following two cases involving the
electric and magnetic static fields.
1. If a dielectric such as solid beeswax be placed between the metal
plates of a capacitor and a voltage is applied across the plates
such that the charge is stored as and energy field in the
dielectric, the dielectric may be removed and set aside until later.
Then, when the dielectric is placed back between the free plates of
the capacitor, the voltage which will appear across the plates will
be the same as the voltage originally applied across those plates.
This proves that the energy related to the electric field is stored
in the physical entity of the molecules and atoms of the dielectric.
I ask the reader to now attempt the same with the vacuum of space.
2. If a flat disk if metal be spun between the opposite poles of a
magnet where those poles form a field 90 degrees to the surface of
the disk and the poles are also circular and completely cover the
surface of the disk, a voltage will appear between the center of the
disk and its outside edge. If the reverse is attempted, and the
magnet is spun instead of the disk, no voltage will be generated in
the disk. This proves that the intrinsic field of space cannot be
moved with the relative motion of the magnetic field so that there
is no physical essence of space for that purpose.
In summation, space cannot hold energy since it has no physical
essence that will allow it to do so. It is therefore the field and
its own energy that defines space and thus space is characterized
and given substance by the nature and energy of the field. This
allows for the concept of 'photon space' as applied to the
electromagnetic field. Since it defines the space, it also fixes the
way we see space.
The purpose of the reprints above is to clarify my position
concerning fields and space relative to contemporary thinking where
space is assumed to have some sort of essence apart from the fields
that exist in it. >> -- Jerry E. Bayles.
http://www.electrogravity.com/index7.html
Neither
SR or Gr
requires one. Although of course it does not rule out one. But
then you
would have Occams razor to worry about.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
05 Sep 2003 02:52:09 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f553ee2$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Laurent
Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all
fields,
including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but
immaterial.
First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
The aether of Einstein? Not sure there is such a thing.
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it spacetime.
There is no space as such, therefore no preferred frame or absolute
frame. His aether is NOT a material reference frame. In Einstein's
view, we have a background free Universe, in the material sense.
Fields, not the aether, are seen as synonymous to spacetime.
--
Laurent
------------------------------------------------
<< The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of
relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the
electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the
conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from
the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of
co-ordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest,
the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to
K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations
without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new
system of co-ordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation
relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question: Why must I in the
theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are
physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the
ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician
such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no
corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable.
If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion
relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me
from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but
nevertheless inacceptable. >>
[...]
<< 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. >>
[...]
<< If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic
field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a
remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any
part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer
upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be
imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is
inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand
a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic
field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the
electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the
ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet
in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the
present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as
opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new
formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the
gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example,
with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the
electromagnetic type.
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than
condensations of the electromagnctic field, our present view of the
universe presents two realities which are completely separated from
each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely,
gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also
be called space and matter. >>
[...]
<< 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. >> --- Einstein, 1920
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
-------------------------------------------------
<< Finally, concerning space having intrinsic reality in the absence
of a defining field, consider the following two cases involving the
electric and magnetic static fields.
1. If a dielectric such as solid beeswax be placed between the metal
plates of a capacitor and a voltage is applied across the plates
such that the charge is stored as and energy field in the
dielectric, the dielectric may be removed and set aside until later.
Then, when the dielectric is placed back between the free plates of
the capacitor, the voltage which will appear across the plates will
be the same as the voltage originally applied across those plates.
This proves that the energy related to the electric field is stored
in the physical entity of the molecules and atoms of the dielectric.
I ask the reader to now attempt the same with the vacuum of space.
2. If a flat disk if metal be spun between the opposite poles of a
magnet where those poles form a field 90 degrees to the surface of
the disk and the poles are also circular and completely cover the
surface of the disk, a voltage will appear between the center of the
disk and its outside edge. If the reverse is attempted, and the
magnet is spun instead of the disk, no voltage will be generated in
the disk. This proves that the intrinsic field of space cannot be
moved with the relative motion of the magnetic field so that there
is no physical essence of space for that purpose.
In summation, space cannot hold energy since it has no physical
essence that will allow it to do so. It is therefore the field and
its own energy that defines space and thus space is characterized
and given substance by the nature and energy of the field. This
allows for the concept of 'photon space' as applied to the
electromagnetic field. Since it defines the space, it also fixes the
way we see space.
The purpose of the reprints above is to clarify my position
concerning fields and space relative to contemporary thinking where
space is assumed to have some sort of essence apart from the fields
that exist in it. >> -- Jerry E. Bayles.
http://www.electrogravity.com/index7.html
Neither
SR or Gr
requires one. Although of course it does not rule out one. But
then you
would have Occams razor to worry about.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Palenik" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
05 Sep 2003 04:17:22 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Dh6dnej2nJ1idcWiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it spacetime.
Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
06 Sep 2003 08:35:28 AM |
|
|
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:wOGcnUOfxpn5YMWiU-KYvg@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Dh6dnej2nJ1idcWiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space
can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it
spacetime.
Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
Right. But you do, don't you?
What is it that indignates you so? Is it the fact that Newton's
absolute space is an old, outdated concept, or is it that Einstein's
space isn't a primary or fundamental property of physical reality.
Do you know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Palenik" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
06 Sep 2003 02:34:52 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Kn6dne8sLf26f8SiXTWJgA@comcast.com...
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:wOGcnUOfxpn5YMWiU-KYvg@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Dh6dnej2nJ1idcWiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space
can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it
spacetime.
Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
Right. But you do, don't you?
It's called Physics 225.
What is it that indignates you so? Is it the fact that Newton's
absolute space is an old, outdated concept, or is it that Einstein's
space isn't a primary or fundamental property of physical reality.
Do you know?
If you would like to ask a question that means something, I'd be more than
happy to answer it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
06 Sep 2003 03:52:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:N3ydnRcqZuF9q8eiXTWJkA@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Kn6dne8sLf26f8SiXTWJgA@comcast.com...
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:wOGcnUOfxpn5YMWiU-KYvg@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Dh6dnej2nJ1idcWiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space
can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it
spacetime.
Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
Right. But you do, don't you?
It's called Physics 225.
What is it that indignates you so? Is it the fact that Newton's
absolute space is an old, outdated concept, or is it that
Einstein's
space isn't a primary or fundamental property of physical
reality.
Do you know?
If you would like to ask a question that means something, I'd be
more than
happy to answer it.
If space were primary, non derivable, not a product... why is it
that relativity considers it as relative? How can, depending on the
observer's point of view, the distance between two objects be
variable?
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
06 Sep 2003 06:04:33 PM |
|
|
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:N3ydnRcqZuF9q8eiXTWJkA@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Kn6dne8sLf26f8SiXTWJgA@comcast.com...
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:wOGcnUOfxpn5YMWiU-KYvg@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Dh6dnej2nJ1idcWiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space
can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it
spacetime.
Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
Right. But you do, don't you?
It's called Physics 225.
What is it that indignates you so? Is it the fact that Newton's
absolute space is an old, outdated concept, or is it that
Einstein's
space isn't a primary or fundamental property of physical
reality.
Do you know?
If you would like to ask a question that means something, I'd be
more than
happy to answer it.
If space is primary, then explain non-local quantum effects.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
06 Sep 2003 07:48:59 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<Uu-dnZqmwv4V-seiXTWJhA@comcast.com>...
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:N3ydnRcqZuF9q8eiXTWJkA@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Kn6dne8sLf26f8SiXTWJgA@comcast.com...
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:wOGcnUOfxpn5YMWiU-KYvg@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Dh6dnej2nJ1idcWiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space
can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it
spacetime.
Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
Right. But you do, don't you?
It's called Physics 225.
What is it that indignates you so? Is it the fact that Newton's
absolute space is an old, outdated concept, or is it that
Einstein's
space isn't a primary or fundamental property of physical
reality.
Do you know?
If you would like to ask a question that means something, I'd be
more than
happy to answer it.
If space is primary, then explain non-local quantum effects.
How about this: Space and Time are not seperate effects.
Hypoethetically, any given particle has as much freedom in time as
they do in space. What is keeping them going in one direction in time,
then? Simple: Certain symmetry patterns in the universe make things
more dependent on their past than they are of their future, meaning
that time only goes one way. The Lorentz Symmetry Pattern is such a
pattern. However, at energy scales beyond the Lorentz Symmetry
Pattern, there is no such thing as a unique direction from which
causality 'flows'. All directions, not only in space, but in time, are
equal at the fundamental energy scale.
It actually makes sense what you think about it.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
06 Sep 2003 09:01:47 PM |
|
|
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<Uu-dnZqmwv4V-seiXTWJhA@comcast.com>...
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:N3ydnRcqZuF9q8eiXTWJkA@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Kn6dne8sLf26f8SiXTWJgA@comcast.com...
"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:wOGcnUOfxpn5YMWiU-KYvg@wideopenwest.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:Dh6dnej2nJ1idcWiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space
can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it
spacetime.
Wow, you *really* don't understand relativity.
Right. But you do, don't you?
It's called Physics 225.
What is it that indignates you so? Is it the fact that Newton's
absolute space is an old, outdated concept, or is it that
Einstein's
space isn't a primary or fundamental property of physical
reality.
Do you know?
If you would like to ask a question that means something, I'd be
more than
happy to answer it.
If space is primary, then explain non-local quantum effects.
How about this: Space and Time are not seperate effects.
Hypoethetically, any given particle has as much freedom in time as
they do in space. What is keeping them going in one direction in time,
then? Simple: Certain symmetry patterns in the universe make things
more dependent on their past than they are of their future, meaning
that time only goes one way. The Lorentz Symmetry Pattern is such a
pattern. However, at energy scales beyond the Lorentz Symmetry
Pattern, there is no such thing as a unique direction from which
causality 'flows'. All directions, not only in space, but in time, are
equal at the fundamental energy scale.
It actually makes sense what you think about it.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Are you sure?
Now explain to me, in detail, why the perfect reverse of a sequence is
physically impossible, provided that at any given instant we could
exactly reverse the velocities of the involved particles?
The answer is very simple. The interaction between electromagnetic
particles occurs according to the very definite general law that 'like
charges repel and unlike charges attract'. So for any given process the
perfect reversal of that process requires a perfect reversal of that
general law of charges. Reversing the velocity vectors will not change
the direction of the interaction between the charges, i.e. it will not
change the vector potential developed between the relatively moving
particles. IOW, in general, all processes will continue more or less
exactly as
before, entropy will still increase according to exactly the same
thermodynamic law that applies in the universe of our experience.
As for time itself, on a more fundamental level, it is just the
successive intervals of change that occur according to the existing law
of charges. It is irreversible by reason of that physical law and no
other laws are relevant to the argument. It sufficient in itself.
Time isn't a flow, it isn't a movement through some 'thing', it is just
the measure of movement through (or change in position within )the three
spatial dimensions of space wrt some uniform standard of motion that we
have arbitrarily designated as a 'clock'. The concept 'clock' is in turn
synonymous with 'a device for registering changes in position of some
point or group of points with a system that is undergoing regular
change', i.e. change occurring within a system that is held in
equilibrium.
In hindsight, now that you have this knowledge in hand, now be honest,
isn't all of the above rather obvious? ;)
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "funk420" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
05 Sep 2003 03:03:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:52:09 -0400, "Laurent"
<cyberdyno4@starpower.net> wrote:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f553ee2$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Laurent
Right, Einstein's aether is supposed to be the seat to all
fields,
including the fields that make EMR and/or ZPR.
EMR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but
immaterial.
First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
spacetime, matter and even CMBR.
The aether of Einstein? Not sure there is such a thing.
Yes there is, but not in spacetime. Einstein's space is
4-dimensional, but not his aether. In Einstein's view, space can't
exist without time, process, or change, so he calls it spacetime.
There is no space as such, therefore no preferred frame or absolute
frame. His aether is NOT a material reference frame. In Einstein's
view, we have a background free Universe, in the material sense.
Fields, not the aether, are seen as synonymous to spacetime.
Call it what you will.
You said "his aether is not a material reference frame".
However, it posesses inherent preferred frames.
Fields do posess a reference frame, one can say "take the frame of
reference such that the magnetic field vanishes".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
01 Sep 2003 09:10:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:00:39 +1000, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Every metal box you can imagine.
It hasn't been done?
Can you cite an experiment that tested whether
*you* fall down when we drop *you* from a
tower?
Thanks Dirk; saves me the trouble. I wish these guys would learn a
little electromagnetic theory.
How about it Bill, enlighten us all on how easy it is to do the
control experiment and why it was NEVER done as a baseline if it
IS soooooo... easy!
Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light
traveled; not a form of light itself which is what the background
radiation is.
Explain this in term of a basic aether theory then Billy Boy!
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
02 Sep 2003 08:08:19 PM |
|
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
How about it Bill, enlighten us all on how easy it is to do the
control experiment and why it was NEVER done as a baseline if it
IS soooooo... easy!
First experimental physics is not my thing. But the answer on how it would
be done is a Farday cage as Bigle and others have explained. Why has the
experiment not been done? How a grounded Faraday cage works is basic
electromagnetic theory that easily follows from Maxwells equations and the
fact that surface chages in conductors are mobile. See for example page 102
of Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics. My father was an elecrical
engineer and I can assure you Faraday cages are uused all the time to screen
out stray electromagnetic fields. It has been tested time and time again.
The fact it follows from basic theory and has beeb tested so many times
would make it an unteresting thing to experimentally verify.
But do not let what I say stop you. Figure out an experiment, have it
published and see if you can get an experimenter interestrested.
Bill hobba wrote:
Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light
traveled; not a form of light itself which is what the background
radiation is.
Paul Stowe wrote:
Explain this in term of a basic aether theory then Billy Boy!
You want me to support an aether theory? Your barking up the wrong tree.
An aether as thought of in the 19th century was supposed to be the medium
through which light traveled. They could not conceive of waves without a
medium despite the fact that the mathematics of wave motion did not require
it. It only required something wave; and that something may not be a
medium. But they failed to see the last point and assumed it was. Later
when light was discovered to be a electromagnetic radiation rather than take
the view it was fields that waved and leave it at that; it was decided the
fields must somehow be connected with the aether. My understanding was all
sorts of models were proposed. For example from page 40 the Conceptual
Development of 20th Century Field Theories:
'the material particles we conceived either as smoke rings or vortical atoms
in the plenum as suggested by magnetic optical rotation or as centers of
rotation strain in the elastic aether'.
If you do not have a copy of the above book please do get a hold of one
where these matters are discussed in excruciating detail. Suffice to say
the aether had so many problems it was abandoned. We are now left with LET
which is a valid theory but at a cost - the existence of an undetectable
aether - hardly the best state of affairs. In the end it was realized its
existence is what allowed Lorentz to maintain the notion of absolute space
and time (see page 41 of the above book).
Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the
medium through which light travels. If you wish to use it as the basis for
choosing a special frame of reference then go ahead. But because it is
electromagnetic radiation it can be blocked. So for a physicist in a
laboratory where it has been blocked how would they determine if they were
at rest in the aether frame? Besides SR applies to inertial reference
frames which are theoretical constructs that are assumed not to contain this
background.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
02 Sep 2003 08:40:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:08:19 +1000, "Bill Hobba"
<bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
How about it Bill, enlighten us all on how easy it is to do the
control experiment and why it was NEVER done as a baseline if it
IS soooooo... easy!
First experimental physics is not my thing. But the answer on how
it would be done is a Farday cage as Bigle and others have explained.
Why has the experiment not been done? How a grounded Faraday cage
works is basic electromagnetic theory that easily follows from
Maxwells equations and the fact that surface chages in conductors are
mobile. See for example page 102 of Griffiths Introduction to
Electrodynamics. My father was an elecrical engineer and I can assure
you Faraday cages are uused all the time to screen out stray
electromagnetic fields. It has been tested time and time again.
The fact it follows from basic theory and has beeb tested so many
times would make it an unteresting thing to experimentally verify.
Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
But do not let what I say stop you. Figure out an experiment, have it
published and see if you can get an experimenter interested.
Bill hobba wrote:
Besides the aether was supposed to the medium through which light
traveled; not a form of light itself which is what the background
radiation is.
Paul Stowe wrote:
Explain this in term of a basic aether theory then Billy Boy!
You want me to support an aether theory? Your barking up the wrong tree.
No, I wanted you to show us that you understand it. You cannot
legitimately criticize that which you yourself do not understand.
An aether as thought of in the 19th century was supposed to be the medium
through which light traveled. They could not conceive of waves without a
medium despite the fact that the mathematics of wave motion did not require
it. It only required something to wave; and that something may not be a
medium. But they failed to see the last point and assumed it was. Later
when light was discovered to be a electromagnetic radiation rather than take
the view it was fields that waved and leave it at that; it was decided the
fields must somehow be connected with the aether. My understanding was all
sorts of models were proposed. For example from page 40 the Conceptual
Development of 20th Century Field Theories:
Yawn..., have the book, read it, in fact I've recommended it as good
reading.
'the material particles we conceived either as smoke rings or vortical atoms
in the plenum as suggested by magnetic optical rotation or as centers of
rotation strain in the elastic aether'.
If you do not have a copy of the above book please do get a hold of one
where these matters are discussed in excruciating detail. Suffice to say
the aether had so many problems it was abandoned. We are now left with LET
which is a valid theory but at a cost - the existence of an undetectable
aether - hardly the best state of affairs. In the end it was realized its
existence is what allowed Lorentz to maintain the notion of absolute space
and time (see page 41 of the above book).
Yes the aether had problems, not the least of which was/is vortex
dynamics. Know anything about THAT topic Bill?
Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the
medium through which light travels.
??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as
background noise... Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the
fact that the medium itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
If you wish to use it as the basis for choosing a special frame of
reference then go ahead. But because it is electromagnetic radiation it
can be blocked.
Maybe (far field sources, absolutely), but I'm from Missouri, show
me...
So for a physicist in a laboratory where it has been blocked how would
they determine if they were at rest in the aether frame?
Ah, unblock it...
Besides SR applies to inertial reference frames which are theoretical
constructs that are assumed not to contain this background.
Theoretical constructs do not reality make... Anyway so what?
Paul Stowe
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
03 Sep 2003 03:48:25 AM |
|
|
pstowe@ix.netcom.com:
Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the metal
making up the faraday cage. Why would the radiation corresponding to
the microwave background penertrate the conductor better than other
signal? Why is it a problem to simply calculate the blackbody spectrum
at room temperature and subtract it in software to see what's left?
[...]
Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the
medium through which light travels.
??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as
background noise...
Thermal fluctuations of the medium.
Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the
fact that the medium itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? If not, then what is
doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated charges)? How do your
charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If there is space
between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill space, in which case
you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to treat your medium in the
same way as any other dielectric by providing a set of equations with no
\epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
03 Sep 2003 09:36:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:48:25 -0000,
dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
pstowe@ix.netcom.com:
Hmmm, as I thought, shallow thinking... It is very easy, indeed
trival, to 'block' any far field EM radiation. Hell, simple metal
sheets will do (the ultimate Faraday cage). But there's an itsy
bitsy problem Billy Boy, unless that thar metal is less than the
temperature spectrum you want to block, you guess what might happen!
Here, let me guess. What you'll see is the noise spectrum of the metal
making up the faraday cage.
Bingo...
Why would the radiation corresponding to the microwave background
penertrate the conductor better than other signal?
NEVER said it would...
Why is it a problem to simply calculate the blackbody spectrum at room
temperature and subtract it in software to see what's left?
Try answering you own question...
[...]
Now the cosmic background radiation is a form of light so can not be the
medium through which light travels.
??? What is "a natural source of sound" Bill? Otherwise known as
background noise...
Thermal fluctuations of the medium.
More fundamental, density fluctuations of the medium, which BTW, is
all sound waves are.
Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the fact that the medium
itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? ...
On the contrary David, atoms are made of aether...
If not, then what is doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated
charges)? ...
The aether of space is hypothesised to be the medium of space. A
compressible medium will incur density fluctuations, which will be
a source for both destructive and constructive interference. Those
that persist, and constructively couple, will manifest in a
background 'noise'. For air, this is a natural backround 'noise'.
For the aether, ditto, but for it, the waves are manifested in the
vortex sponge manifold as waves of light.
How do your charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If
there is space between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill
space, in which case you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to
treat your medium in the same way as any other dielectric by providing
a set of equations with no \epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}.
This I take as a fundamental misunderstanding...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
04 Sep 2003 02:52:53 PM |
|
|
pstowe@ix.netcom.com:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 08:48:25 -0000,
dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
Why is it a problem to simply calculate the blackbody spectrum at room
temperature and subtract it in software to see what's left?
Try answering you own question...
I did and the answer was that you are wrong.
[...]
Thermal fluctuations of the medium.
More fundamental, density fluctuations of the medium, which BTW, is
all sound waves are.
What's your point? Those fluctuations are longitudinal - they are
moving masses. Electromagnetic radiation is transverse.
Where does it arise in mundane media? Does the fact that the medium
itself self generates it make it a 'cannot be'?
Are you claiming that your ether is made of atoms? ...
On the contrary David, atoms are made of aether...
I could replace your word "aether" with "stuff" without affecting
anything you've said, because you never have defined your "aether"
any better than that. Since the point of doing physics is to quantify
"stuff", not merely rename it, your claim about atoms is nothing but
empty semantics.
If not, then what is doing the radiating (which is caused by accelerated
charges)? ...
The aether of space is hypothesised to be the medium of space.
As such, you should be able to give it properties which result
in the physics it's supposed to explain. Since the reason it was
developed goes all the back to electromagnetism, the first thing
it should explain is transverse radiation. Sound waves are long-
itudinal. You can't support vortices in fluid with no viscosity,
which is why models of superfluids contain both super and normal
components.
A compressible medium will incur density fluctuations, which will be
a source for both destructive and constructive interference. Those
that persist, and constructively couple, will manifest in a
background 'noise'.
That is not so. Noise is random.
[...]
How do your charges accelerate if there is no space between them? If
there is space between them, then obviously the medium doesn't fill
space, in which case you should be rewriting maxwell's equations to
treat your medium in the same way as any other dielectric by providing
a set of equations with no \epsilon_{0} or \mu_{0}.
This I take as a fundamental misunderstanding...
On your part.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RL Gerl" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
04 Sep 2003 10:30:57 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnblf6v9.178.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
pstowe@ix.netcom.com:
I could replace your word "aether" with "stuff" without affecting
anything you've said, because you never have defined your "aether"
any better than that. Since the point of doing physics is to quantify
"stuff", not merely rename it, your claim about atoms is nothing but
empty semantics.
Well said Bilge. "LET" is purely an ad-hoc theory and that's its biggest
problem. Sombody might claim that length contraction, time dilation, and so
on, is the work of gremlins and correctly point out that this ad-hoc theory
makes all the same predictions as relativity. So "LET" is really no better
than gremlins because "LET"'s aether, like gremlins, has no theoretical
description and its foundations, therefore, remain "eternally in the dark".
"...the all-penetrating ether had to be assumed as the carrier of the waves,
but no known phenomenon suggested the way in which the ether was built up
from material points. One could never get a clear picture of the internal
forces governing the ether, nor of the forces acting between the ether and
ponderable matter. The foundations of this theory remained, therefore,
eternally in the dark."
Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions, page 304.
Randy
http://www.rlgerl.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
05 Sep 2003 08:22:39 PM |
|
|
RL Gerl wrote:
Well said Bilge. "LET" is purely an ad-hoc theory and that's its biggest
problem. Sombody might claim that length contraction, time dilation, and
so
on, is the work of gremlins and correctly point out that this ad-hoc
theory
makes all the same predictions as relativity. So "LET" is really no
better
than gremlins because "LET"'s aether, like gremlins, has no theoretical
description and its foundations, therefore, remain "eternally in the
dark".
"...the all-penetrating ether had to be assumed as the carrier of the
waves,
but no known phenomenon suggested the way in which the ether was built up
from material points. One could never get a clear picture of the internal
forces governing the ether, nor of the forces acting between the ether and
ponderable matter. The foundations of this theory remained, therefore,
eternally in the dark."
Albert Einstein: Ideas and Opinions, page 304.
I do not believe in an aether either. But I do not believe it existence is
entirely ad-hoc. If you want an underlying reality with an absolute time
then you need an aether. But that comes at a price - so far it is not
detectable. So you have a choice between two counter intuitive ideas - non
absolute time and an undetectable aether. I choose the former but it is
obvious from the writings in the newsgroup the later is preferable to some.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "RL Gerl" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
06 Sep 2003 01:37:19 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f5935f4_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
I do not believe in an aether either. But I do not believe it existence
is
entirely ad-hoc. If you want an underlying reality with an absolute time
then you need an aether. But that comes at a price - so far it is not
detectable. So you have a choice between two counter intuitive ideas -
non
absolute time and an undetectable aether. I choose the former but it is
obvious from the writings in the newsgroup the later is preferable to
some.
Thanks for the reply Bill, this has been a very interesting thread. I
haven't seen anything to suggest that the aether idea, and "LET" in
particular, is anything other than purely ad-hoc. If we replace the word
"gremlins" with "aether", in my original post, we basically have the best
"aether" theory there is. It seems the point that Bilge was getting at was
the same as Einstein's: there is no description at all of the space-filling
medium. The "aether" is completely mysterious just like the statement
"gremlins tweak the cosmos to mimick relativistic effects" is completely
silent on the inner workings of gremlins -- (and the physics of their
interactions with the cosmos). I don't know if an undetectable aether is
counter intuitive or not but it is certainly no better than gremlins. Thus,
the general idea of a space filling medium is vastly inferior to
relativity -- (especially in light of the fact that there's lots of
experimental evidence against the existence of the "aether").
All the best,
Randy
http://www.rlgerl.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RL Gerl" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
06 Sep 2003 01:16:48 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f5935f4_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
RL Gerl wrote:
Well said Bilge. "LET" is purely an ad-hoc theory and that's its
biggest
problem. >
I do not believe in an aether either. But I do not believe it existence
is
entirely ad-hoc. If you want an underlying reality with an absolute time
then you need an aether. But that comes at a price - so far it is not
detectable. So you have a choice between two counter intuitive ideas -
non
absolute time and an undetectable aether. I choose the former but it is
obvious from the writings in the newsgroup the later is preferable to
some.
Thanks
Bill
Thanks for the reply Bill, this has been a very interesting thread. I
haven't seen anything to suggest that the aether idea, and "LET" in
particular, is anything other than purely ad-hoc. If we replace the word
"gremlins" with "aether", in my original post, we basically have the best
"aether" theory there is. It seems the point that Bilge was getting at was
the same as Einstein's: there is no description at all of the space-filling
medium. The "aether" is completely mysterious just like the statement
"gremlins tweak the cosmos to mimick relativistic effects" is completely
silent on the inner workings of gremlins -- (and the physics of their
interactions with the cosmos). I don't know if an undetectable aether is
counter intuitive or not but it is certainly no better than gremlins. Thus,
the general idea of a space filling medium is vastly inferior to
relativity -- (especially in light of the fact that there's lots of
experimental evidence against the existence of the "aether").
All the best,
Randy
http://www.rlgerl.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
07 Sep 2003 12:11:07 AM |
|
|
RL Gerl wrote:
Thanks for the reply Bill, this has been a very interesting thread. I
haven't seen anything to suggest that the aether idea, and "LET" in
particular, is anything other than purely ad-hoc. If we replace the word
"gremlins" with "aether", in my original post, we basically have the best
"aether" theory there is. It seems the point that Bilge was getting at
was
the same as Einstein's: there is no description at all of the
space-filling
medium. The "aether" is completely mysterious just like the statement
"gremlins tweak the cosmos to mimick relativistic effects" is completely
silent on the inner workings of gremlins -- (and the physics of their
interactions with the cosmos). I don't know if an undetectable aether is
counter intuitive or not but it is certainly no better than gremlins.
Thus,
the general idea of a space filling medium is vastly inferior to
relativity -- (especially in light of the fact that there's lots of
experimental evidence against the existence of the "aether").
On the non existence of an aether your preaching to the converted. But the
fact is LET is a valid theory (with all sorts of problems such as how the
aether generalizes to GR) so in the spirit of scientific virtue I will not
go so far as to say with scientific certainty it does not exist. I just
believe it does not and I am sure that to this point its existence has
proven superfluous.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul R. Mays" |
|
| Title: Re: CMBR Vs. Einstein's Aether |
05 Sep 2003 09:06:22 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f5935f4_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
RL Gerl wrote:
Well said Bilge. "LET" is purely an ad-hoc theory and that's its
biggest
problem. Sombody might claim that length contraction, time dilation,
and
so
on, is the work of gremlins and correctly point out that this ad-hoc
theory
makes all the same predictions as relativity. So "LET" is really no
better
than gremlins because "LET"'s aether, like gremlins, has no theoretical
description and its foundations, therefore, remain "eternally in the
dark".
"...the a | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
