| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Einsteinhoax" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2005 09:15:05 AM |
| Object: |
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether" |
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein
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
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
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 of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
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. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether" |
07 Aug 2005 02:59:19 PM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein
Oh the delicious irony of that quotation!
[snip 300 lines of ignorant crap]
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://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
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.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<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>
<http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
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
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
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
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
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: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether" |
07 Aug 2005 01:31:27 PM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57 /iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
Oh... and thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
