| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Riaperuq" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2004 09:32:13 AM |
| Object: |
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether made its
presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their butts
from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:
Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability. If space is "empty",
what is it that has these properties? Since, if space consisted of a volume of
"nothingness", only a fool would assert that it could have any properties other
than volume. Since it does, space it would seem that it does contain a rejected
entity, which was called the Aether in the 19th Century!
The velocity of light in free space is determined by the dielectric
constant and the permeability of space in accordance with accepted physical
laws. Similarly, the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined, using an
equation analogous to that used to determine the velocity of light, by the
elasticity and density of the steel. While a modern physicist seems to assert
that the existence of the dielectric constant and the permeability of space
does not require the existence of a medium (i.e.- the Aether) having these
properties, it seems certain that he would not be foolish enough to assert
that, since the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined only by its
elasticity and its density, he could remove the rod and retain the density and
elasticity so that the sound could propagate. One might reasonably wonder if
something is lacking in the mentality of physicists who would tolerate such a
double intellectual standard.
Special Relativity (and the Lorentz Contraction Aether Theory) tells us
that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. Such
an independence is characteristic of a wavelike disturbance propagating through
a medium, it is not characteristic of an entity propagating ballistically
through "empty" space. For example, the sound of a rifle shot travels at the
velocity of sound in air and its velocity is independent of the velocity of the
rifle. The velocity of the bullet from the rifle, however, is additively
determined by the velocity of the rifle and the velocity at which the bullet is
projected. If we abolish the Aether the observed independence of the velocity
of light from the velocity of its source would seem to require that some form
of "magic" must be at work since light would then have no way to determine how
fast it is supposed to travel. Since the writer finds the idea of "magic"
accounting for observations in the science of physics extremely hard to accept,
he would be grateful if someone could provide some other explanation, which
does not require a medium (the Aether). (P.S.- Handwaving arguments about
spacetime don't serve the purpose.)
If one examines Dirac"s treatment of the creation of complementary
particles from high energy photons, he finds that Dirac had to invent a "sea of
negative energy pervading all of space" in order to make his mathematics work.
Aside from the fact that "negative energy", in the sense that Dirac used it,
would seem not only to be unexplained but to be impossible, how does that
postulated "sea of negative energy" differ from the Aether? Both say that
"something" exists in a space which had been arbitrarily assumed to be empty!
Current theory asserts that forces that “act at a distance” do so as a
result of "virtual particles" (e.g.- virtual photons, gravitons, gluons, etc.)
that pop into and out of existence so rapidly that quantum uncertainties
prevent the Law of Conservation of Energy from being violated. There would seem
to be at least two problems with this concept:-
The first is the problem is the number of particles involved. At any
instant of time, every particle in the Universe gravitationally attracts every
other particle and they must therefore be exchanging gravitons. Furthermore,
these gravitons, since they are virtual, must be extremely short lived. The
number of gravitons involved in this concept is staggering. At any instant for
example, assuming that the presently accepted value of 10^80 particles in the
Universe is reasonably correct, there must be at least 0.5*(10^160) particles
existing at one time. The size of this number is increased by the fact that
they must be short lived and therefore must be replaced continuously (gravity
appears to be continuous), suggests that a bit of skepticism would be in order.
The second problem is that of explaining how the exchange of "virtual
particles" accomplishes the production of an "attractive force". The production
of a repulsive force by the exchange of particles is obvious. Two athletes
throwing a medicine ball back and forth experience a repulsive force because of
momentum exchange between them. There does not seem to have ever been a viable
explanation as to how these particles act to produce an attractive force. The
momentum exchange requirement to produce an attractive force prohibits the
production of such a force unless there is a substrate (e.g.:- the Aether) with
which they can exchange momentum. A boomerang returns to the thrower because it
exchanges momentum with such a medium (air). If space were empty (no Aether),
such a momentum exchange cannot occur and the virtual particles could only
produce a repulsive force. The writer is aware that the mathematics associated
with the concept of "virtual particles" allows for the production of attractive
forces. He is also aware of the fact that there are many mathematically treated
problems in which the mathematics deals with conditions outside of other
constraints related to the problem and which limit the applicability of the
mathematics. This would seem to be such a case. Allow the Aether or its
equivalent to be present as a substrate and the mathematics of "virtual
photons" works.
There are two interpretations of Quantum Theory. One interpretation
involves parallel Universes coexisting in the same space as our own that are
created every time that a particle makes a "quantum choice". This approach not
only suffers the problem of absurdly large numbers described for gravitons, it
requires that an amount of energy equal to the energy content of our entire
Universe multiplied by the number of particles in the Universe be created at
every instant of time. It also requires that the volume of space occupied by
each particle contain an amount of energy equal to the energy equivalent of
that enormous amount of energy. Since the writer accepts the concepts that
energy is conserved and two entities cannot occupy the same space at the same
time, he considers the interpretation to be rather foolish.
The other interpretation of Quantum Theory requires that quantum effects
propagate at an "infinite" velocity. Most of the academic hierarchy seems to
consider this interpretation to be both "spooky" and wrong since "Special
Relativity clearly shows that nothing can travel faster than light". To the
contrary, Special Relativity shows the opposite. What it shows is that an
entity represented by energy cannot travel faster than the velocity of light
and the scientific community has fallen into the trap of assuming that
everything that is observable is represented by some form of energy. The reason
that the Special Theory of Relativity imposes its restrictions on velocity is
that the Lorentz Transformation for energy, in a force-length-time system of
units, is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5. This means that, at the velocity of light, energy
becomes infinite and that, at velocities above that of light, energy becomes
imaginary. The effect is a limitation on the velocity of propagation of energy.
As a result, any form of communication that involves the encoding of
information in the form of energy is limited to the velocity of light.
Experiments have shown that the polarization of "paired photons" is
coupled so that changing the polarization direction (the quantum number) of one
causes the polarization direction of the other to change in correspondence. In
addition to demonstrating this polarization coupling, experiments performed in
the ‘80s have also shown that the polarization coupling propagates at least 4
times the velocity of light and perhaps at an infinite velocity. (It should be
noted that changing the polarization direction of a photon does not change its
energy content so the coupling of polarization direction between them does not
involve energy transfer).
The polarization direction of the photon is an angle that is measured in
radians (the distance along an arc divide by the radius of that arc). The
Lorentz Transformation for Angle is therefore equal to the Lorentz
Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for Length and
is therefore equal to unity and is independent of velocity. (Above and below a
velocity of C, the value of unity is obvious. At the velocity of C, the value
is nominally indeterminate but can be shown to be equal to the value of unity
by borrowing a technique from Calculus). With a value of unity for the Lorentz
Transformation for Angle, it seems reasonable to assert that Special Relativity
requires the polarization coupling of paired photons to travel at the infinite
velocity required by the second, more rational interpretation of Quantum
Theory. Assuming that this is the case, then the current concept of "spacetime"
as a single entity must be in error. An absolute time and velocity reference is
required.
If one examines both the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and the
Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (LCAT), he finds that they are actually the
same theory in that they are cross derivable. (LCAT) is actually a special case
solution of (STR) and cannot be disproved without disproving (STR) as well.
LCAT asserts that the Aether exists but because information cannot propagate
faster than light (quantum theory tells us that this is not true), we cannot
find our velocity with respect to it. STR tells us that because our velocity
with respect to the Aether cannot be measured, it does not exist in the theory!
It does not preclude its existence or its effect from being observed by other
means. Dr. Einstein asserted, "remember gentlemen, we have not disproved the
existence of the Aether, we have only proven that we do not need it (for
computations)".
An objection to the existence of the Aether has been raised. This
objection is that if the Aether exists, "absolute time" would also have to
exist. The idea of absolute time has, however, been abolished in physical
theory. Unfortunately, its rejection did not result from physical observation
or from logical deductions based on previously proven facts. It is based solely
upon a consensus viewpoint. In other words, that rejection is based upon an
unproven (and probably unprovable opinion) rather than upon fact. The
motivation for this opinion would seem to be an overwhelming urge on the part
of physicists to consider space and time to be aspects of the same structure,
spacetime, as viewed from different reference frames so as to make their
mathematical treatment "elegant". Nature doesn't care about what we would like
to be true and there is no objectively valid reason to accept the viewpoint.
It is claimed that the concept of spacetime rather than space and time as
separate entities yields a simpler solution and, according to the principle of
Ockham's Razor, must therefore be the correct one. It is true, mathematical
solutions employing the spacetime concept are much simpler than solutions
involving the Aether, but the solutions are not simpler with respect to
reality. As Dr. Einstein, who maintained a belief in "absolute time" for 25
years after the publication of Special Relativity exclaimed, the "concept of
spacetime requires an infinite number of Aethers" as indeed it does. Once one
realizes this, Ockham's Razor would lead any reasonable man to the Aether and
not to the concept of "spacetime" as a single entity
Unfortunately, Modern Physics seems to have been taken over by
mathematical idiot savants who lack an appreciation for the implications of
mechanism and strive to suppress the contributions of those who would dare to
say "Hey, wait a minute"
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
| User: "roy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
27 Aug 2004 04:42:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:32:13 +0000, Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
Don't forget Sagnac effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
27 Aug 2004 04:41:36 AM |
|
|
roy wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:32:13 +0000, Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
Don't forget Sagnac effect.
Is well explained without aether.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 10:28:03 AM |
|
|
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
There isn't any!
Luminiferous Ether
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franois Guillet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 12:14:51 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> a crit dans le message de
news:412E017C.345EB98F@mchsi.com...
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
There isn't any!
Luminiferous Ether
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
"Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability."
Could you tell us where these properties come from ?
FG
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 11:54:23 PM |
|
|
"Franois Guillet" <guillet.francois@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:cgl5qa$qg9$1@news-reader3.wanadoo.fr...
|
| "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> a crit dans le message de
| news:412E017C.345EB98F@mchsi.com...
| > Riaperuq wrote:
| > >
| > > Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
| > >
| >
| > There isn't any!
| >
| > Luminiferous Ether
| > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
| > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
| > http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
| >
| > Special Relativity
| > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
| > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
|
| "Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
| properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability."
|
| Could you tell us where these properties come from ?
That would be an easy one. Vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) or +,-
sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) for you SI affectionados. c = 1/sqrt(eps0*mu0) is SI
shorthand for:
c = lambda/(2pi*sqrt(Lvac*Cvac)),
where Lvac and Cvac are vacuum inductance and capacitance. The above
expression is valid for any system of units. In SI, Lvac = mu0*lambda/8pi^2
and Cvac = 2*eps0*lambda. Plug 'em in and see what you get. Vacuum
inductance and capacitance cannot exist unless vacuum charge exists. QED
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 03:13:24 PM |
|
|
"Franois Guillet" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> a crit dans le message de
news:412E017C.345EB98F@mchsi.com...
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
There isn't any!
Luminiferous Ether
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
"Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability."
Could you tell us where these properties come from ?
FG
fabric of spacetime... no aether
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marcel LeBel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 08:03:27 PM |
|
|
Franois Guillet wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> a crit dans le message de
news:412E017C.345EB98F@mchsi.com...
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
There isn't any!
Luminiferous Ether
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
"Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability."
Could you tell us where these properties come from ?
FG
Excellent point! I always wondered how could "emptiness" have any
properties!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 09:10:09 PM |
|
|
Marcel LeBel wrote:
Franois Guillet wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> a crit dans le message de
news:412E017C.345EB98F@mchsi.com...
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
There isn't any!
Luminiferous Ether
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
"Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability."
Could you tell us where these properties come from ?
FG
Excellent point! I always wondered how could "emptiness" have any
properties!
Heisenberg Uncertainty. Every allowed EM mode has a half-photon
uncertainty. Casimir effect, electron anomalous g-factor, Lamb
shift, Rabi vacuum oscillations... It is screamingly obvious,
theory plus verifying empirical experiment. To 14 significant
figures in some cases.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 12:58:25 PM |
|
|
Franois Guillet wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> a crit dans le message de
news:412E017C.345EB98F@mchsi.com...
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
There isn't any!
Luminiferous Ether
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aether+site%3Awww.aip.org+update
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
"Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability."
Could you tell us where these properties come from ?
FG
He can't really cognate to the point
where he knows what we're asking when we
ask that.
He's kind of like a computer, he and Al,
you know, garbage in garbage out.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 01:47:34 PM |
|
|
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
[snip 210 lines of ignorant crap]
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether, idiot.
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete1.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each
of the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks
or three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites
(currently being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and
two cesium atomic clocks.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial
Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change
the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a
special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and
therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare
group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** -
even when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 04:57:52 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether, idiot.
I do not have access to a university library at this time. Can you
precise that article in about 50 words or less. If you can't then let it go.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 06:16:44 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2p74n1Fh6lueU5@uni-berlin.de...
|
|
| Uncle Al wrote:
|
| > Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
| > No aether, idiot.
|
| I do not have access to a university library at this time. Can you
| precise that article in about 50 words or less. If you can't then let it
go.
Here is twenty-plus words at the following link.
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/contents.html
"Lorentz Invariance on Trial"
Ya need a subscription for the rest of the article.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 06:33:37 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2p74n1Fh6lueU5@uni-berlin.de...
Uncle Al wrote:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether, idiot.
Bob Kolker
I do not have access to a university library at this time. Can you
precise that article in about 50 words or less. If you can't then let it go.
[hanson]
ftp://cfa-ftp.harvard.edu/pub/walsworth/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
Lorentz Invariance on Trial
Maxim Pospelov and Michael Romalis
Physics Today 57, 40 (July, 2004).
(46 pages....but negative for -find word- "aether" in article)
Abstract says only:
== Precision experiments and astronomical observations
provide complementary test of Lorentz invariance and may
soon open a window onto new physics. They have already
constrained models of quantum gravity an cosmology ==
......then one reads under paragraph: "Why bother?"
"...in fact the best experiments and astrophysical observations
can indirectly probe distances scales as short as Planck
Length l_pl = sqrt (G*hbar/c^3) ~ 10^-35 m. Experiments
that probe such short scales can constrain quantum gravity
scenarios...."
......ahahaha......."indirectly".......yeah, very, VERY indirectly...
AFAIAC the article is a pedestrian pontification on the heuristics of
the field and Al read into it: "No aether"........ahahahaha........
but it contains nothing new, barring conjectures (may's & coulds)
which are less interesting and far less imaginative then ones
one can get from the "enlightened & far out" posters in these NGs
............ahahahaha.........
see also
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/Results.html (abstracts)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/Activities/Popular.html
--
hanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Trynor" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 11:38:01 PM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2p74n1Fh6lueU5@uni-berlin.de...
Uncle Al wrote:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether, idiot.
Bob Kolker
I do not have access to a university library at this time. Can you
precise that article in about 50 words or less. If you can't then let it go.
[hanson]
ftp://cfa-ftp.harvard.edu/pub/walsworth/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
Lorentz Invariance on Trial
Maxim Pospelov and Michael Romalis
Physics Today 57, 40 (July, 2004).
(46 pages....but negative for -find word- "aether" in article)
Abstract says only:
== Precision experiments and astronomical observations
provide complementary test of Lorentz invariance and may
soon open a window onto new physics. They have already
constrained models of quantum gravity an cosmology ==
.....then one reads under paragraph: "Why bother?"
"...in fact the best experiments and astrophysical observations
can indirectly probe distances scales as short as Planck
Length l_pl = sqrt (G*hbar/c^3) ~ 10^-35 m. Experiments
that probe such short scales can constrain quantum gravity
scenarios...."
.....ahahaha......."indirectly".......yeah, very, VERY indirectly...
AFAIAC the article is a pedestrian pontification on the heuristics of
the field and Al read into it: "No aether"........ahahahaha........
but it contains nothing new, barring conjectures (may's & coulds)
which are less interesting and far less imaginative then ones
one can get from the "enlightened & far out" posters in these NGs
...........ahahahaha.........
see also
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/Results.html (abstracts)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/Activities/Popular.html
--
hanson
Dale Trynor wrote:
Hanson: I do approve of how you think, couldn't say it much better myself.
What I dont really mind the arguments where its pointed out the the use
of the word "aether" causes confusion with its old interpretation.
However what I hate is when its disproof is used to imply that there is
no such thing as the quantum vacuum or of anything else in any sort of
quantum nature that would give any sort of physical properties to the
vacuum at all. Its all elves traveling by nothing, through nothing, by
nothing at all and it will never be understood only measured.
In the end I suppose its really about what you think is more confusing.
Do you prefer a confusion where no aether implys a vacuum without any
internal properties or a quantum vacuum that thats so much like a
different sort of aether.
I have noted that even stanch oposers of aether theory have no problem
with a quantum vacuum, makes me think that maybe bull ***** rules.
Dale
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
27 Aug 2004 03:45:25 PM |
|
|
"Dale Trynor" <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:JUyXc.101765$Np3.4909430@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
hanson wrote:
"robert j. kolker"
Uncle Al wrote:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether, idiot.
Bob Kolker
I do not have access to a university library at this time. Can you
precise that article in about 50 words or less. If you can't then let it go.
[hanson]
ftp://cfa-ftp.harvard.edu/pub/walsworth/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
Lorentz Invariance on Trial
Maxim Pospelov and Michael Romalis
Physics Today 57, 40 (July, 2004).
(46 pages....but negative for -find word- "aether" in article)
Abstract says only:
== Precision experiments and astronomical observations
provide complementary test of Lorentz invariance and may
soon open a window onto new physics. They have already
constrained models of quantum gravity an cosmology ==
.....then one reads under paragraph: "Why bother?"
"...in fact the best experiments and astrophysical observations
can indirectly probe distances scales as short as Planck
Length l_pl = sqrt (G*hbar/c^3) ~ 10^-35 m. Experiments
that probe such short scales can constrain quantum gravity
scenarios...."
.....ahahaha......."indirectly".......yeah, very, VERY indirectly...
AFAIAC the article is a pedestrian pontification on the heuristics of
the field and Al read into it: "No aether"........ahahahaha........
but it contains nothing new, barring conjectures (may's & coulds)
which are less interesting and far less imaginative then ones
one can get from the "enlightened & far out" posters in these NGs
...........ahahahaha.........
see also
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/Results.html (abstracts)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/Activities/Popular.html
hanson
Dale Trynor wrote:
Hanson: I do approve of how you think, couldn't say it much better myself.
What I dont really mind the arguments where its pointed out the the use
of the word "aether" causes confusion with its old interpretation.
However what I hate is when its disproof is used to imply that there is
no such thing as the quantum vacuum or of anything else in any sort of
quantum nature that would give any sort of physical properties to the
vacuum at all. Its all elves traveling by nothing, through nothing, by
nothing at all and it will never be understood only measured.
In the end I suppose its really about what you think is more confusing.
Do you prefer a confusion where no aether implys a vacuum without any
internal properties or a quantum vacuum that thats so much like a
different sort of aether.
I have noted that even stanch oposers of aether theory have no problem
with a quantum vacuum, makes me think that maybe bull ***** rules.
Dale
[hanson]
......ahahaha....thanks for your approval, Professor Dale Trynor.
Now, let me pontificate on the last paragraph in your post about
that "bull ***** ". This is good, Dale. Look at it this way. Think of
that bull ***** as being fertilizer and some readers having the
brains of birds, the acumen of flies and the mentality of plants.
For them that ***** provides a feastly pickens, a great breeding
ground and essential nourishment. ---- The world is self-similar.
But, they don't wanna see that.......ahahahaha...AHAHAHA.....
Take care, Dale,
ahahaha......ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
27 Aug 2004 12:15:14 AM |
|
|
"Dale Trynor" <dalet@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:JUyXc.101765$Np3.4909430@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
[snip]
| I have noted that even stanch oposers of aether theory have no problem
| with a quantum vacuum, makes me think that maybe bull ***** rules.
Yep, but ***** mostly only rules on these newsgroups. I don't think you
will find many particle physicists that *don't* think the quantum vacuum is
a dielectric medium that screens charge. At least one major physicist, G.
Volovik, is not afraid to say it like it is:
"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."
First paragraph of the Conclusion in "The Universe in a Helium Droplet".
The "quantum vacuum" *is* the "new ether". Vacuum charge = +,-
sqrt(hbar*c). Wake up people. Time to get out of that dreamland you have
been in. ;-)
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 07:09:51 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether, idiot.
I do not have access to a university library at this time. Can you
precise that article in about 50 words or less. If you can't then let it go.
Bob Kolker
Assuming you a member of one of the AIP cluster of physics societies
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 07:20:35 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Assuming you a member of one of the AIP cluster of physics societies
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Alas I am not. How do I join.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 07:56:22 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2p7d2kFh2dprU2@uni-berlin.de...
|
|
| Sam Wormley wrote:
| >
| >
| > Assuming you a member of one of the AIP cluster of physics societies
| > http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
|
| Alas I am not. How do I join.
No need to if all you want is that one article thanks to hanson.
But if you want to subscribe to Physics Today, just pay the $69 subscription
fee. You don't have to be a member of a physics society.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 07:21:20 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether, idiot.
I do not have access to a university library at this time. Can you
precise that article in about 50 words or less. If you can't then let it go.
Bob Kolker
Send me an email and I'll return a copy of the article, Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 06:26:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:57:52 -0400, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether, idiot.
I do not have access to a university library at this time. Can you
precise that article in about 50 words or less. If you can't then let it go.
Bob Kolker
It is a review of a bunch of experiments that scream Lorentz
invariance. It says, using a host of experiments including..:
N-th generation inferometers [like the one used in the MMX]. I notice
cranks fixate on the MMX, but fail to realise that there has been more
than one experiment of that type since the 19th century :)
Checking the spin of He3 and Xe129 ions by seeing if a
Lorentz-violating effect appears to couple to magnetic moments. This
is done over a period of ~3 months, to check if anything would pop up
depending on the movement of the Earth. That one is spiffy.
Cosmic tests of wavelength dependant and independant polarization of
EM radiation.
....etc...it does go on and I did miss a few.
It basically says the universe is Lorentz invariant to a bunch of
decimal places. You can safely infer that there is no aether.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 10:19:51 AM |
|
|
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether made its
presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their butts
from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:
First tell us what kind of aether you are talking about. Then produce
experimental evidence to support your claim.
Light is particles. The do not need no steeenkig fluid to spport them.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franois Guillet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of the Existence of the Aether |
26 Aug 2004 12:14:18 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> a crit dans le message de
news:2p6dcvFhc6klU5@uni-berlin.de...
Riaperuq wrote:
Evidence of the Existence of the Aether
It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether
made its
presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their
butts
from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:
First tell us what kind of aether you are talking about. Then produce
experimental evidence to support your claim.
Light is particles. The do not need no steeenkig fluid to spport them.
Bob Kolker
"Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability."
Could you tell us these properties come from ?
FG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
