| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Laurent" |
| Date: |
24 May 2007 04:31:38 PM |
| Object: |
What is the Aether? |
The aether is simply the space between two points. David Bohm called
it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates
us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of
Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they
explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the
aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does
it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day
he died.
---
Whether you can call it God or not would depend on what you think God
is. To me God was a thing incapable of thinking or feeling until
matter and brains came into existence. Besides that, many, like
Buddhists for example, call it Consciousness, others call it Mind, but
they are all referring to same THING I am talking about, a universal
being. The aether, like God, is omnipresent, eternal, with no
beginning and no end. The aether is the seat of the field, and without
fields there would be no universe, right? Therefore, it is the source
of everything there is.
David Chalmers likes to ask - what is that which is? - he calls this
"the hard problem", and the answer is, the aether is that which is.
Why? Because it is immutable, it is now what it always was, and there
is nothing in this universe that you can say that about, simply
because matter is in constant change, what was five seconds ago, is
not anymore.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 09:49:35 AM |
|
|
Laurent wrote:
The aether is simply the
[snip crap]
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 01:25:07 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 10:49 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Laurent wrote:
The aether is simply the
[snip crap]
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
OK, so what would you call the space between particles?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 01:54:48 PM |
|
|
Laurent wrote:
OK, so what would you call the space between particles?
Space
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Koobee Wublee" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 11:41:36 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al presented "Breaking Lorentz Symmetry".
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
In the article ...
"To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called
a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be
the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry."
Laws of physics must be the same PERIOD. Or else, the subject of
physics cannot exist. What Lorentz Symmetry deals with is a special
case of this. That is laws of physics cannot be different based on
one's absolute speed. This is the principle of relativity.
"It was Einstein who, in 1905, first used Lorentz symmetry to describe
the laws of physics in our universe."
No, it was Galileo through his principle of relativity.
"He took Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of special relativity,
whereby he assumed that the laws of physics - including the speed of
light in a vacuum - are the same for all inertial observers."
Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform. The two postulates
of SR are the properties of the Lorentz transform. The principle of
relativity as one of the two postulates was already identified by
Galileo several hundreds of years ago. The constancy in the speed of
light was proposed by Voigt to explain the null result of the 1881
Michelson experiment six years before the more famous Michelson-Morley
experiment.
There are no special frames of reference referred to as 'inertial'.
"These transformations had actually been discovered the previous year
by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz when he was attempting to explain the null
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment."
The Lorentz transformation was first put together by Larmor after
modifying the Voigt transform to allow for the principle of
relativity.
"Lorentz symmetry has so far withstood the tests of time, but in
recent years theorists have begun to question whether it is indeed an
exact symmetry of nature."
This is totally BS. Nature shows very clearly the breakdown in the
symmetry. Since there is no such paradox in nature as the time
paradox also known as the twin's paradox, the symmetry must not exist
because the time paradox is a manifestation of both the time dilation
and the principle of relativity at the same time. To resolve this
paradox, either or both time dilation and the principle of relativity
must be wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 12:46:22 PM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180111296.137323.23290@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[uncle Al]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/5c39ac249a4d8fa0
wherin he says:
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
[hanson]
Idiot. The word "aether" is NOT mentioned a single time in
your citation... ahahaha.. Al, you have been told this many
times before... ahahaha... google groups: 9 hits for:
-[ author:hanson@quick.net Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
.... but you do equate your citing lit. with your intellicence....
.... and furthermore along the same vein, as KooWu indicates
in your second citation below.. you, Al, just invent something
about your cits in your mind that is not even there... ahahaha...
That's really severely gifted, Al... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs!
[KooWu]
Uncle Al presented "Breaking Lorentz Symmetry".
[uncle Al]
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
Al Schwartz said: "No Lorentz violation"
[KooWu]
In the article ... http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 it says:
"To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called
a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be
the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry."
[KooWu]
Laws of physics must be the same PERIOD. Or else, the subject of
physics cannot exist. What Lorentz Symmetry deals with is a special
case of this. That is laws of physics cannot be different based on
one's absolute speed. This is the principle of relativity.
In the article...
"It was Einstein who, in 1905, first used Lorentz symmetry to describe
the laws of physics in our universe."
[KooWu]
No, it was Galileo through his principle of relativity.
In the article...
"He took Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of special relativity,
whereby he assumed that the laws of physics - including the speed of
light in a vacuum - are the same for all inertial observers."
[KooWu]
Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform. The two postulates
of SR are the properties of the Lorentz transform. The principle of
relativity as one of the two postulates was already identified by
Galileo several hundreds of years ago. The constancy in the speed of
light was proposed by Voigt to explain the null result of the 1881
Michelson experiment six years before the more famous Michelson-Morley
experiment.
There are no special frames of reference referred to as 'inertial'.
In the article...
"These transformations had actually been discovered the previous year
by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz when he was attempting to explain the null
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment."
[KooWu]
The Lorentz transformation was first put together by Larmor after
modifying the Voigt transform to allow for the principle of
relativity.
In the article...
"Lorentz symmetry has so far withstood the tests of time, but in
recent years theorists have begun to question whether it is indeed an
exact symmetry of nature."
[KooWu]
This is totally BS. Nature shows very clearly the breakdown in the
symmetry. Since there is no such paradox in nature as the time
paradox also known as the twin's paradox, the symmetry must not exist
because the time paradox is a manifestation of both the time dilation
and the principle of relativity at the same time. To resolve this
paradox, either or both time dilation and the principle of relativity
must be wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 12:37:47 PM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180111296.137323.23290@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: Uncle Al presented "Breaking Lorentz Symmetry".
:
: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
:
: In the article ...
:
: "To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called
: a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be
: the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry."
Why does it always come down to "observers"?
Observers are not objective, they are subjective.
:
: Laws of physics must be the same PERIOD. Or else, the subject of
: physics cannot exist. What Lorentz Symmetry deals with is a special
: case of this. That is laws of physics cannot be different based on
: one's absolute speed. This is the principle of relativity.
:
: "It was Einstein who, in 1905, first used Lorentz symmetry to describe
: the laws of physics in our universe."
:
: No, it was Galileo through his principle of relativity.
Copernicus made use of the principle of relativity before Galileo.
:
: "He took Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of special relativity,
: whereby he assumed that the laws of physics - including the speed of
: light in a vacuum - are the same for all inertial observers."
Lies. Einstein's three postulates are:
1) The PoR (an axiom)
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(False, disproved by Sagnac.)
3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A.
(Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that
Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. )
:
: Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform. The two postulates
: of SR are the properties of the Lorentz transform.
There are three. Please do not repeat Einstein's own lies.
1) The PoR (an axiom)
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(False, disproved by Sagnac.)
3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A.
(Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that
Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. )
: The principle of
: relativity as one of the two postulates
There are three. Please do not repeat Einstein's own lies.
1) The PoR (an axiom)
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(False, disproved by Sagnac.)
3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A.
(Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that
Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. )
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 12:57:17 PM |
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180111296.137323.23290@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: Uncle Al presented "Breaking Lorentz Symmetry".
:
: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
:
: In the article ...
:
: "To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called
: a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be
: the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry."
Why does it always come down to "observers"?
Observers are not objective, they are subjective.
:
: Laws of physics must be the same PERIOD. Or else, the subject of
: physics cannot exist. What Lorentz Symmetry deals with is a special
: case of this. That is laws of physics cannot be different based on
: one's absolute speed. This is the principle of relativity.
:
: "It was Einstein who, in 1905, first used Lorentz symmetry to describe
: the laws of physics in our universe."
:
: No, it was Galileo through his principle of relativity.
Copernicus made use of the principle of relativity before Galileo.
:
: "He took Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of special relativity,
: whereby he assumed that the laws of physics - including the speed of
: light in a vacuum - are the same for all inertial observers."
Lies. Einstein's three postulates are:
1) The PoR (an axiom)
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(False, disproved by Sagnac.)
3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A.
(Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that
Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. )
:
: Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform. The two postulates
: of SR are the properties of the Lorentz transform.
There are three. Please do not repeat Einstein's own lies.
1) The PoR (an axiom)
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(False, disproved by Sagnac.)
3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A.
(Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that
Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. )
: The principle of
: relativity as one of the two postulates
There are three. Please do not repeat Einstein's own lies.
1) The PoR (an axiom)
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(False, disproved by Sagnac.)
3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A.
(Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact that
Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
04 Jun 2007 11:34:25 AM |
|
|
Someone reply so Androcles sees this post.
Androcles wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180111296.137323.23290@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: Uncle Al presented "Breaking Lorentz Symmetry".
:
: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
:
: In the article ...
:
: "To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called
: a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be
: the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry."
Why does it always come down to "observers"?
Observers are not objective, they are subjective.
That's why it's callen relativity.
: "He took Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of special relativity,
: whereby he assumed that the laws of physics - including the speed of
: light in a vacuum - are the same for all inertial observers."
Lies. Einstein's three postulates are:
Lies on what, bed? ground? Don't c=F2l=F2niz runons.
1) The PoR (an axiom)
2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(False, disproved by Sagnac.)
Sagnac is acceleration, *****. It's the speed c that's
independent.
3) the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it
requires to travel from B to A.
(Trivially false, disproved by Cassini-Huyghens at Saturn and the fact th=
at
Earth moves. The cuckoo malformations are based on relative movement. )
They are not A, B, B, and A, but A, B1, B2, and A3 then.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 01:33:10 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 12:41 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Al presented "Breaking Lorentz Symmetry".
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
In the article ...
"To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called
a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be
the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry."
Laws of physics must be the same PERIOD. Or else, the subject of
physics cannot exist. What Lorentz Symmetry deals with is a special
case of this. That is laws of physics cannot be different based on
one's absolute speed. This is the principle of relativity.
"It was Einstein who, in 1905, first used Lorentz symmetry to describe
the laws of physics in our universe."
No, it was Galileo through his principle of relativity.
"He took Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of special relativity,
whereby he assumed that the laws of physics - including the speed of
light in a vacuum - are the same for all inertial observers."
Einstein reverse-engineered the Lorentz transform. The two postulates
of SR are the properties of the Lorentz transform. The principle of
relativity as one of the two postulates was already identified by
Galileo several hundreds of years ago. The constancy in the speed of
light was proposed by Voigt to explain the null result of the 1881
Michelson experiment six years before the more famous Michelson-Morley
experiment.
There are no special frames of reference referred to as 'inertial'.
"These transformations had actually been discovered the previous year
by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz when he was attempting to explain the null
results of the Michelson-Morley experiment."
The Lorentz transformation was first put together by Larmor after
modifying the Voigt transform to allow for the principle of
relativity.
"Lorentz symmetry has so far withstood the tests of time, but in
recent years theorists have begun to question whether it is indeed an
exact symmetry of nature."
This is totally BS. Nature shows very clearly the breakdown in the
symmetry. Since there is no such paradox in nature as the time
paradox also known as the twin's paradox, the symmetry must not exist
because the time paradox is a manifestation of both the time dilation
and the principle of relativity at the same time. To resolve this
paradox, either or both time dilation and the principle of relativity
must be wrong.
The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
internal processes to continue. As an object reaches the speed of
light (the speed at which fields propagate) and since energy is
finite, there are time dilations and length contractions in order to
compensate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 01:45:48 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180117990.511469.295550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
: internal processes to continue. As an object reaches the speed of
: light (the speed at which fields propagate) and since energy is
: finite, there are time dilations and length contractions in order to
: compensate.
*****. What happens when the "object" goes in the other direction?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 02:01:22 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 2:45 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180117990.511469.295550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
: internal processes to continue. As an object reaches the speed of
: light (the speed at which fields propagate) and since energy is
: finite, there are time dilations and length contractions in order to
: compensate.
*****. What happens when the "object" goes in the other direction?
???
This process has nothing to do with direction, it is the same in any
direction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 03:02:58 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180119682.251414.170630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: On May 25, 2:45 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1180117990.511469.295550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > : The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
: > : internal processes to continue. As an object reaches the speed of
: > : light (the speed at which fields propagate) and since energy is
: > : finite, there are time dilations and length contractions in order to
: > : compensate.
: >
: > *****. What happens when the "object" goes in the other direction?
:
:
: ???
:
: This process has nothing to do with direction, it is the same in any
: direction.
Perhaps you don't believe in radio.
There is no energy transfer from the transmitter to the purple antenna
a double energy transfer for the gold antenna in this diagram:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif
Perhaps you've never heard of Doppler.
Perhaps you've never heard of E = h(nu).
Perhaps you've never heard of the Principle of Relativity.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler2.gif
Perhaps you are another "light-only-has-one-speed" crackpot.
Perhaps you are talking out of your arse, I can only see cow patties.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 05:12:23 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 4:02 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180119682.251414.170630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: On May 25, 2:45 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: >news:1180117990.511469.295550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > : The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
: > : internal processes to continue. As an object reaches the speed of
: > : light (the speed at which fields propagate) and since energy is
: > : finite, there are time dilations and length contractions in order to
: > : compensate.
: >
: > *****. What happens when the "object" goes in the other direction?
:
:
: ???
:
: This process has nothing to do with direction, it is the same in any
: direction.
Perhaps you don't believe in radio.
There is no energy transfer from the transmitter to the purple antenna
a double energy transfer for the gold antenna in this diagram:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif
Perhaps you've never heard of Doppler.
Perhaps you've never heard of E = h(nu).
Perhaps you've never heard of the Principle of Relativity.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler2.gif
Perhaps you are another "light-only-has-one-speed" crackpot.
Perhaps you are talking out of your arse, I can only see cow patties.
Perhaps you don't know what process it is I am talking about?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 05:27:30 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180131143.416984.8110@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: On May 25, 4:02 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1180119682.251414.170630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: > : On May 25, 2:45 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : >news:1180117990.511469.295550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: > : >
: > : > : The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
: > : > : internal processes to continue. As an object reaches the speed of
: > : > : light (the speed at which fields propagate) and since energy is
: > : > : finite, there are time dilations and length contractions in order
to
: > : > : compensate.
: > : >
: > : > *****. What happens when the "object" goes in the other
direction?
: > :
: > :
: > : ???
: > :
: > : This process has nothing to do with direction, it is the same in any
: > : direction.
: >
: > Perhaps you don't believe in radio.
: > There is no energy transfer from the transmitter to the purple antenna
: > a double energy transfer for the gold antenna in this diagram:
: >
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif
: >
: > Perhaps you've never heard of Doppler.
: > Perhaps you've never heard of E = h(nu).
: > Perhaps you've never heard of the Principle of Relativity.
: >
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler2.gif
: >
: > Perhaps you are another "light-only-has-one-speed" crackpot.
: > Perhaps you are talking out of your arse, I can only see cow patties.
:
:
: Perhaps you don't know what process it is I am talking about?
"The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
internal processes to continue." -- Laurent.
You are talking out of your arse, that is bovine excrement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 07:01:49 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 6:27 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180131143.416984.8110@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: On May 25, 4:02 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: >news:1180119682.251414.170630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: > : On May 25, 2:45 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : >news:1180117990.511469.295550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: > : >
: > : > : The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
: > : > : internal processes to continue. As an object reaches the speed of
: > : > : light (the speed at which fields propagate) and since energy is
: > : > : finite, there are time dilations and length contractions in order
to
: > : > : compensate.
: > : >
: > : > *****. What happens when the "object" goes in the other
direction?
: > :
: > :
: > : ???
: > :
: > : This process has nothing to do with direction, it is the same in any
: > : direction.
: >
: > Perhaps you don't believe in radio.
: > There is no energy transfer from the transmitter to the purple antenna
: > a double energy transfer for the gold antenna in this diagram:
: >
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif
: >
: > Perhaps you've never heard of Doppler.
: > Perhaps you've never heard of E = h(nu).
: > Perhaps you've never heard of the Principle of Relativity.
: >
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler2.gif
: >
: > Perhaps you are another "light-only-has-one-speed" crackpot.
: > Perhaps you are talking out of your arse, I can only see cow patties.
:
:
: Perhaps you don't know what process it is I am talking about?
"The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
internal processes to continue." -- Laurent.
You are talking out of your arse, that is bovine excrement.
So, you believe that if you could take a carbon atom and cut its
internal components' speed to half the atom would continue to exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
25 May 2007 09:00:01 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180137709.837533.318440@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: On May 25, 6:27 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1180131143.416984.8110@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: > : On May 25, 4:02 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : >news:1180119682.251414.170630@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: > : > : On May 25, 2:45 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : > : > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > : > : >
: > : > : >news:1180117990.511469.295550@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order
for
: > : > : > : internal processes to continue. As an object reaches the speed
of
: > : > : > : light (the speed at which fields propagate) and since energy
is
: > : > : > : finite, there are time dilations and length contractions in
order
: > to
: > : > : > : compensate.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > *****. What happens when the "object" goes in the other
: > direction?
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : ???
: > : > :
: > : > : This process has nothing to do with direction, it is the same in
any
: > : > : direction.
: > : >
: > : > Perhaps you don't believe in radio.
: > : > There is no energy transfer from the transmitter to the purple
antenna
: > : > a double energy transfer for the gold antenna in this diagram:
: > : >
: > : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif
: > : >
: > : > Perhaps you've never heard of Doppler.
: > : > Perhaps you've never heard of E = h(nu).
: > : > Perhaps you've never heard of the Principle of Relativity.
: > : >
: > : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler2.gif
: > : >
: > : > Perhaps you are another "light-only-has-one-speed" crackpot.
: > : > Perhaps you are talking out of your arse, I can only see cow
patties.
: > :
: > :
: > : Perhaps you don't know what process it is I am talking about?
: >
: > "The propagation speed of fields must be kept constant in order for
: > internal processes to continue." -- Laurent.
: > You are talking out of your arse, that is bovine excrement.
:
: So, you believe that if you could take a carbon atom and cut its
: internal components' speed to half the atom would continue to exist?
Never assume what I believe, you'll be wrong every time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
24 May 2007 04:54:33 PM |
|
|
Laurent wrote:
The aether is simply the space between two points. David Bohm called
it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates
us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of
Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they
explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the
aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does
it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day
he died.
aether
o current and successful theories don't require an aether
o none is detectable
o no properties are ascribed or measured
o it's a dead concept
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudolf Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
30 May 2007 08:49:56 AM |
|
|
On 24 Mai, 23:54, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
snip
aether
o current and successful theories don't require an aether
o none is detectable
o no properties are ascribed or measured
o it's a dead concept
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
30 May 2007 09:37:59 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 10:49 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...@aon.at> wrote:
On 24 Mai, 23:54, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
snip
aether
o current and successful theories don't require an aether
o none is detectable
o no properties are ascribed or measured
o it's a dead concept
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
Bodies responsible for Z_0 are easily detectable and can even be
seen to alter the value when there density is increased.
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
They don't however have sufficient mass to provide the
reaction force of Newton's third law locally.
<< This is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space". >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
30 May 2007 09:42:44 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 11:37 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On May 30, 10:49 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...@aon.at> wrote:
On 24 Mai, 23:54, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
snip
aether
o current and successful theories don't require an aether
o none is detectable
o no properties are ascribed or measured
o it's a dead concept
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
Bodies responsible for Z_0 are easily detectable and can even be
seen to alter the value when there density is increased.
Oops! URLs should have been:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
They don't however have sufficient mass to provide the
reaction force of Newton's third law locally.
<< This is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space". >>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-le...
Sue...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
30 May 2007 09:13:06 AM |
|
|
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
"The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of
free space, is an expression of the relationship between the
electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic
field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space,
like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and
is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical
constant".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudolf Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
30 May 2007 11:40:18 AM |
|
|
On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
"The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of
free space, is an expression of the relationship between the
electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic
field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space,
like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and
is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical
constant".
Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c).
So what?
A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that?
Usually the charges are electrons.
EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that
can be exited to behave as electrons.
What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the
aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute
coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy.
More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and
new -may be for me only-.
I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current
distribution E and H field.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudolf Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
30 May 2007 11:45:38 AM |
|
|
On 30 Mai, 18:40, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...@aon.at> wrote:
On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:> Rudolf Drabek wrote:
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
"The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of
free space, is an expression of the relationship between the
electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic
field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space,
like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and
is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical
constant".
Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c).
So what?
A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that?
Usually the charges are electrons.
EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that
can be exited to behave as electrons.
What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the
aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute
coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy.
More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and
new -may be for me only-.
I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current
distribution E and H field.
Oh, I forgot, dark matter behaves in the same way. Not detectable to
date.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
30 May 2007 12:03:30 PM |
|
|
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 30 Mai, 18:40, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...@aon.at> wrote:
On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:> Rudolf Drabek wrote:
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
"The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of
free space, is an expression of the relationship between the
electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic
field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space,
like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and
is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical
constant".
Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c).
So what?
A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that?
Usually the charges are electrons.
EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that
can be exited to behave as electrons.
What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the
aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute
coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy.
More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and
new -may be for me only-.
I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current
distribution E and H field.
Oh, I forgot, dark matter behaves in the same way. Not detectable to
date.
Oh dark matter is detectable all right... by its gravitational effects!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudolf Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 02:33:20 AM |
|
|
On 30 Mai, 19:03, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 30 Mai, 18:40, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...@aon.at> wrote:
On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:> Rudolf Drabek wrote:
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
"The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of
free space, is an expression of the relationship between the
electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic
field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space,
like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and
is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical
constant".
Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c).
So what?
A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that?
Usually the charges are electrons.
EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that
can be exited to behave as electrons.
What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the
aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute
coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy.
More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and
new -may be for me only-.
I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current
distribution E and H field.
Oh, I forgot, dark matter behaves in the same way. Not detectable to
date.
Oh dark matter is detectable all right... by its gravitational effects!
Yes, correct, by it's effects
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
30 May 2007 12:02:40 PM |
|
|
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
"The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of
free space, is an expression of the relationship between the
electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic
field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space,
like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and
is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical
constant".
Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c).
So what?
A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that?
Usually the charges are electrons.
EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that
can be exited to behave as electrons.
Says you--I'm saying that photons *do* propagate through empty space
without anything getting excited. Let's do an experiment or make an
observation to decide which idea is supported.
What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the
aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute
coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy.
More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and
new -may be for me only-.
I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current
distribution E and H field.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudolf Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 02:38:14 AM |
|
|
On 30 Mai, 19:02, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not
necc. medium.
But it has 377 Ohm's.
"The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of
free space, is an expression of the relationship between the
electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic
field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space,
like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and
is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical
constant".
Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c).
So what?
A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that?
Usually the charges are electrons.
EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that
can be exited to behave as electrons.
Says you--I'm saying that photons *do* propagate through empty space
without anything getting excited. Let's do an experiment or make an
observation to decide which idea is supported.
What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the
aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute
coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy.
More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and
new -may be for me only-.
I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current
distribution E and H field.
Before an experiment pls agree/not on magnetic field around moving
charges.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
05 Jun 2007 07:23:39 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 3:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Laurent wrote:
The aether is simply the space between two points. David Bohm called
it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates
us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of
Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they
explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the
aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does
it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day
he died.
aether
o current and successful theories don't require an aether
o none is detectable
o no properties are ascribed or measured
o it's a dead concept
Did you notice how he defined "aether", by the way? You're saying
that space does not exist? Woo, that's an impressive result.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
24 May 2007 05:45:14 PM |
|
|
On May 24, 5:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Laurent wrote:
The aether is simply the space between two points. David Bohm called
it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates
us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of
Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they
explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the
aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does
it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day
he died.
aether
o current and successful theories don't require an aether
o none is detectable
o no properties are ascribed or measured
o it's a dead concept
xxein: aether
' current and successful theories are limited to a subjective
measurement (of what?)
' empty space cannot define position, velocity, nor
acceleration without a
connection through a media
' then we see and measure nothing
' Your brain is dead
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
24 May 2007 06:33:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On May 24, 5:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
aether
o current and successful theories don't require an aether
o none is detectable
o no properties are ascribed or measured
o it's a dead concept
aether
' current and successful theories are limited to a subjective
measurement (of what?)
' empty space cannot define position, velocity, nor
acceleration without a
connection through a media
Position and Velocity are *always* with respect to something
else! There is no state of absolute rest or motion. And my
brain is not dead yet.
' then we see and measure nothing
' Your brain is dead
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
