Discussion:
What is Ether?
(too old to reply)
Sanny
2008-04-20 14:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Ether is something present everywhere

Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.

What is refractive index of Ether?

If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.

IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?

Is Ether Mass Less

Does Ether has a Volume

When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance

Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?

Is Ether also present in Vaccume.

What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.

And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.

Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.

If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Robert J. Kolker
2008-04-20 14:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
There is no aether.
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
Photons travel through empty space. No medium is necessary.

Bob Kolker
Paul Mays
2008-04-20 15:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
There is no aether.
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
Photons travel through empty space. No medium is necessary.
Bob Kolker
And the Earth is at the center of the Universe..


--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
Robert J. Kolker
2008-04-20 20:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mays
And the Earth is at the center of the Universe..
Every point in the universe is at the center of the universe.

Look at the surface of a sphere. Which point upon it is the center of
the surface of the sphere. Every point.

Bob Kolker
Paul Mays
2008-04-20 20:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Paul Mays
And the Earth is at the center of the Universe..
Every point in the universe is at the center of the universe.
Look at the surface of a sphere. Which point upon it is the center of
the surface of the sphere. Every point.
Bob Kolker
But there is a Center to the Sphere.. Not directly percievable by an
observer
within the Sphere... Now you address Intrinsic Bias and didn't even know
it......

--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
tadchem
2008-04-21 01:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mays
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Paul Mays
And the Earth is at the center of the Universe..
Every point in the universe is at the center of the universe.
Look at the surface of a sphere. Which point upon it is the center of
the surface of the sphere. Every point.
Bob Kolker
But there is a Center to the Sphere.. Not directly percievable by an
observer
within the Sphere... Now you address Intrinsic Bias and didn't even know
it......
--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
The 4-dimensional space-time coordinates of the Center of the Universe
are, approximately, Here(x), Here(y), Here(z), and 13.5GYa(t).

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Errol
2008-04-21 15:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
There is no aether.
The aether will be unhappy to hear that
Not the 19th century aether in which matter is suspended within the
aether and seperate from it, but the Einsteinian concept in which
space/aether is the field from which particles are generated
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
Photons travel through empty space. No medium is necessary.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
2008-04-21 17:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
The aether will be unhappy to hear that
Not the 19th century aether in which matter is suspended within the
aether and seperate from it, but the Einsteinian concept in which
space/aether is the field from which particles are generated
If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a cat have? Answer: 4.
Calling a tail a leg does not make a tail into a let. Likewise calling
the spacetime manifold aether, does not make it into aether.

No aether. There is no space-time filling substance that is solid and
stiff like steel yet so rare it does not slow planets down in their orbits.

Bob Kolker
oldcoot
2008-04-22 14:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
There is no space-time filling substance that is solid and
stiff like steel yet so rare it does not slow planets down in their orbits.
Got a question that I've never heard adequately answered. The
existance of such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproved conclusively
by the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887. So why was Einstein still
wholeheartedly endorsing it well into the 1920s? A case in point is
his famous University of Leyden lecture of 1920 wherein he
summarized :

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this
sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general
theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-
rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the
physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time....

And concluded :

"The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

That last sentence shows his continuing affirmation of the Lorentzian
'rigid lattice' concept, which was finally abolished in the 1920s and
rightly so. But why was it still being endorsed for 35+ years even
though proven false? Enquiring minds would like to know.
Tom Roberts
2008-04-23 14:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by oldcoot
The
existance of such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproved conclusively
by the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887.
No, it did not do so. In refuted the then-current aether theory, which
included such a rigid aether (a continuum, not a "lattice"), but it did
not refute all such theories. In particular, we now know that there is a
class of ether theories that are all experimentally indistinguishable
from SR; they all share a rigid ether at rest in some specific (but
unknown) ether frame -- none are refuted by any existing experiment
within their domain of applicability (which is the same as SR's).
Post by oldcoot
So why was Einstein still
wholeheartedly endorsing it well into the 1920s?
,
He wasn't. The quote you gave was from a conference on the aether, and
Einstein framed his remarks to fit in with the subject of the
conference. The "aether" he discusses is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from that
of any then-current aether theory. It is not any physical substance, but
is rather just an interpretation of GR. Today we consider GR to be a
MODEL of the world, rather than a literal description, and the issue
does not arise.

Claiming that Einstein "advocated" or "endorsed" an ether indicates
complete ignorance of his writings and approach to physics.


The real problem with aether/ether theories is describing quantum
phenomena. Light quite clearly has quantum aspects, and to date there is
not a single ether theory that includes such phenomena, and not a single
ether advocate has even hinted at how any type of ether theory might
apply to quantum phenomena. To the physics community this makes ether
theories both useless and uninteresting, because quantum phenomena are
the central aspect of modern physical theories. And most experiments.


Tom Roberts
kenseto
2008-04-23 15:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by oldcoot
The
existance of such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproved conclusively
by the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887.
No, it did not do so. In refuted the then-current aether theory, which
included such a rigid aether (a continuum, not a "lattice"), but it did
not refute all such theories. In particular, we now know that there is a
class of ether theories that are all experimentally indistinguishable
from SR; they all share a rigid ether at rest in some specific (but
unknown) ether frame -- none are refuted by any existing experiment
within their domain of applicability (which is the same as SR's).
Post by oldcoot
So why was Einstein still
wholeheartedly endorsing it well into the 1920s?
,
He wasn't. The quote you gave was from a conference on the aether, and
Einstein framed his remarks to fit in with the subject of the
conference. The "aether" he discusses is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from that
of any then-current aether theory. It is not any physical substance, but
is rather just an interpretation of GR. Today we consider GR to be a
MODEL of the world, rather than a literal description, and the issue
does not arise.
Claiming that Einstein "advocated" or "endorsed" an ether indicates
complete ignorance of his writings and approach to physics.
The real problem with aether/ether theories is describing quantum
phenomena. Light quite clearly has quantum aspects, and to date there is
not a single ether theory that includes such phenomena, and not a single
ether advocate has even hinted at how any type of ether theory might
apply to quantum phenomena. To the physics community this makes ether
theories both useless and uninteresting, because quantum phenomena are
the central aspect of modern physical theories. And most experiments.
You are wrong. My ether theory explains all quantum effects. Also it
unifies all the forces of nature including gravity.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto
Painius
2008-04-26 23:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by oldcoot
The
existance of such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproved conclusively
by the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887.
No, it did not do so. In refuted the then-current aether theory, which
included such a rigid aether (a continuum, not a "lattice"), but it did
not refute all such theories. In particular, we now know that there is a
class of ether theories that are all experimentally indistinguishable from
SR; they all share a rigid ether at rest in some specific (but unknown)
ether frame -- none are refuted by any existing experiment within their
domain of applicability (which is the same as SR's).
Post by oldcoot
So why was Einstein still
wholeheartedly endorsing it well into the 1920s?
,
He wasn't. The quote you gave was from a conference on the aether, and
Einstein framed his remarks to fit in with the subject of the conference.
The "aether" he discusses is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from that of any
then-current aether theory. It is not any physical substance, but is
rather just an interpretation of GR. Today we consider GR to be a MODEL of
the world, rather than a literal description, and the issue does not
arise.
Claiming that Einstein "advocated" or "endorsed" an ether indicates
complete ignorance of his writings and approach to physics.
Nice PKB, Tom!

Why not try appendix V of the 15th edition of Einstein's
_RELATIVITY - The Special and the General Theory_?

Sounds to me like Einstein heartily embraced a space-
as-field theory to me. Space is either something, or it's
nothing. Call it or don't call it what you will, "nothing"
by its very esoteric nature, does not expand, contract,
nor curve.
Post by Tom Roberts
The real problem with aether/ether theories is describing quantum
phenomena. Light quite clearly has quantum aspects, and to date there is
not a single ether theory that includes such phenomena, and not a single
ether advocate has even hinted at how any type of ether theory might apply
to quantum phenomena. To the physics community this makes ether theories
both useless and uninteresting, because quantum phenomena are the central
aspect of modern physical theories. And most experiments.
Tom Roberts
The physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle. And
cosmology with their godlike BB bulloney fares not
much better. Is it any wonder that scientists have not
found anything to reconcile relativity and quantum
theory?

Because the physics community thinks that so-called
"ether theories" are both uninteresting and useless,
it is paradigmly strapped with both uninteresting and
useless irreconcilable cul-de-sacs. And such will be
the case for many years to come. Just because of the
very thoughts you advocate here.

If you're right, you're right, but whether or not you
are correct, there's no room for arrogance in science.

Not a single ether theory even hints at how it might
apply to quantum mechanics, and yet particle phys.
jump easily onto an uncertainty principle bandwagon!
Shame on them. Posterity will laugh their balls off at
this generation of scientists!

They're not only afraid to go outside the box, they
seem too panicked to even take a peek!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
Tom Roberts
2008-04-29 01:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Painius
The physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle.
Hmmm. I have no idea what an "improvement" on the uncertainty principle
would look like. Certainly the uncertainty principle itself is on solid
ground, as a rigorous relationship of Fourier transforms/integrals.

Quantum gravity is HARD. But you don't seem to understand what that
means....
Post by Painius
And
cosmology with their godlike BB bulloney fares not
much better. Is it any wonder that scientists have not
found anything to reconcile relativity and quantum
theory?
It's easy to thumb your nose. Actually CONTRIBUTING to physics is very
much more difficult.
Post by Painius
Because the physics community thinks that so-called
"ether theories" are both uninteresting and useless,
it is paradigmly strapped with both uninteresting and
useless irreconcilable cul-de-sacs. And such will be
the case for many years to come. Just because of the
very thoughts you advocate here.
So you have a channel to some God that told you "ether is it"?
Post by Painius
If you're right, you're right, but whether or not you
are correct, there's no room for arrogance in science.
Such as your unsupported innuendos and insults above.
Post by Painius
Not a single ether theory even hints at how it might
apply to quantum mechanics, and yet particle phys.
jump easily onto an uncertainty principle bandwagon!
Not a "bandwagon", but a mathematical derivation. I'm not claiming that
all of QM and QFT is rigorous (:-), but the uncertainty principle itself
is quite solid, given its antecedents. You seem to be focusing one one
quite limited aspect of quantum mechanics, without any concept of the
whole picture. That's unlikely to be useful....


Tom Roberts
Jeff▲Relf
2008-04-29 04:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Unless and until we can fully predict the path of, say,
electrons in an electron cloud, we're stuck with Planck's constant.

As I understand it ( ha ha ),
one can derive Planck’s radiation law and Planck's constant from
classical Brownian ( semi-random ) motion.

For example, compare this Inverse Gaussian Probability density function,
showing “ the time a Brownian Motion with positive drift takes
to reach a fixed positive level ”:
Loading Image...

with this blackbody spectrum:
Loading Image...

Quoting WikiPedia:
“ Brownian motion is among the simplest
continuous-time stochastic processes, and it is a limit of
both simpler and more complicated stochastic processes
( see random walk and Donsker's theorem ).

This universality is closely related to
the universality of the normal distribution.

In both cases, it is often mathematical convenience
rather than the accuracy of the models that motivates their use. ”.

Quoting “ www.SpringerLink.COM/content/j52856u3164314r4/ ”:
“ Radiation model for nanoparticle:
extension of classical Brownian motion concepts

Niti Nipun Sharma1 [ Contact Information ]
(1) Mechanical Engineering Group,
Birla Institute of Technology & Science,
Vidya Vihar, Pilani, Rajasthan, 333031, India

Received: 2 December 2006 Accepted: 16 May 2007
Published online: 3 July 2007
Abstract

Emissive power per unit area of a blackbody
has been modeled as a function of frequency
using quantum electrodynamics, semi-classical
and classical approaches in the available literature.

Present work extends
the classical lumped-parameter systems model of Brownian motion
of nanoparticle to abstract
an emissive power per unit area model for nanoparticle
radiating at temperature greater than absolute zero.

The analytical model developed in present work has been based on
synergism of local deformation leading to
local motion of nanoparticle due to photon impacts.

The work suggests the hypothesis of
a free parameter f' characterizing
the damping coefficient of resistive forces to local motion of
nanoparticle and the manipulation of which is possible to realize
desired emissivity from nanoparticles.

The model is validated with
the well established Planck’s radiation law. ”.
Esab
2008-04-29 13:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Your rejectioon of the Aether does you little credit. Yes, STR can be
treated mathematically and works as long as one ignores the other evidences
of its existence. As Einstein said "remember gentlemen, we have not
disproveln the Aether, we have merely pproven that we do not need it (for
calculations)". Without the Aether we are faced with unanswered questions:
1.- The reaction forces required for inertial and gravitational forces are
considered to be "fictitous" in contradiction to Newton's Third Law.

2 - Empty space has observable properties in addition to its volume. It has,
for example, a dielectric constant, permeability, a characteristic
electrical impedance (300 ohms) and propagates light at the velocity of C in
accordance with its dielectric constant and permeability. It seems absurd to
assert that "empty" space has properties. It is not absurd to assert that
"empty space" is actually filled with an "Aether" having those properties.
Since it has been shown in any closed system there is at least one property
that cannot be measured from within the system, the failure of the MM
experiment to measure absolute velocity is hardly relavent. STR becomes
quite easy to understand intuitively if one recognizes that it is actually
identicaly to the earlier Lorentz Trransformation Aether theory and that all
of STR's effects stem from the fact that matter uses the veloxity of light
to contol its parameters.

Try thinking instead of merely propagating the "party line."
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Painius
The physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle.
Hmmm. I have no idea what an "improvement" on the uncertainty principle
would look like. Certainly the uncertainty principle itself is on solid
ground, as a rigorous relationship of Fourier transforms/integrals.
Quantum gravity is HARD. But you don't seem to understand what that
means....
Post by Painius
And
cosmology with their godlike BB bulloney fares not
much better. Is it any wonder that scientists have not
found anything to reconcile relativity and quantum
theory?
It's easy to thumb your nose. Actually CONTRIBUTING to physics is very
much more difficult.
Post by Painius
Because the physics community thinks that so-called
"ether theories" are both uninteresting and useless,
it is paradigmly strapped with both uninteresting and
useless irreconcilable cul-de-sacs. And such will be
the case for many years to come. Just because of the
very thoughts you advocate here.
So you have a channel to some God that told you "ether is it"?
Post by Painius
If you're right, you're right, but whether or not you
are correct, there's no room for arrogance in science.
Such as your unsupported innuendos and insults above.
Post by Painius
Not a single ether theory even hints at how it might
apply to quantum mechanics, and yet particle phys.
jump easily onto an uncertainty principle bandwagon!
Not a "bandwagon", but a mathematical derivation. I'm not claiming that
all of QM and QFT is rigorous (:-), but the uncertainty principle itself
is quite solid, given its antecedents. You seem to be focusing one one
quite limited aspect of quantum mechanics, without any concept of the
whole picture. That's unlikely to be useful....
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
2008-04-30 01:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Esab
Your rejectioon of the Aether does you little credit.
A perusal of my posts in this newsgroup shows quite clearly that I do
not "reject" the aether. But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless. And I also know that no aether theory has any approach to
quantum phenomena, which makes them excessively naive.
Post by Esab
1.- The reaction forces required for inertial and gravitational forces are
considered to be "fictitous" in contradiction to Newton's Third Law.
You ASSUME they are indeed "forces". If that assumption were true, you
would be able to measure them. Please describe how to MEASURE the
"centrifugal or Coriolis force" or the "gravitational force" on an
orbiting satellite. You'll find yourself utterly unable to do so (you
can measure consequences of these "forces", but not the "forces"
themselves).

In GR, none of these are any type of force, and no "reaction force" is
required. For "centrifugal and Coriolis force" this is true in Newtonian
mechanics (they are purely artifacts of using rotating coordinates).
Post by Esab
2 - Empty space has observable properties in addition to its volume. It has,
for example, a dielectric constant, permeability, a characteristic
electrical impedance (300 ohms) and propagates light at the velocity of C in
accordance with its dielectric constant and permeability.
Hmmm. These are not really "properties" of space itself, but rather in
classical electrodynamics they are relationships among field quantities
that are intrinsic to the fields, not to space. In quantum field theory
they are properties of the vacuum, not of space.
Post by Esab
It seems absurd to
assert that "empty" space has properties.
Only when you ASSUME they are "properties of space". In modern physics
they are not (they are properties of the vacuum, which is NOT "space").

[To understand this you must learn about quantum field
theory, where it is quite clear that the vacuum state
lives in the Fock space, not in spacetime.]
Post by Esab
It is not absurd to assert that
"empty space" is actually filled with an "Aether" having those properties.
It's not absurd. But it's not required, either. There is not a single
observation of any sort of aether, and not a single measurement of any
of its properties -- all the relevant phenomena can be explained and
described by classical electrodynamics, in which no aether is present.
And no aether theory has yet even approached describing quantum
phenomena, but QFT (inherently based on SR) does so quite accurately.
Post by Esab
Try thinking instead of merely propagating the "party line."
I belong to no "party". You need to try learning some REAL physics. And
you also need to learn how science is really performed.


Tom Roberts
Robert J. Kolker
2008-04-30 01:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
A perusal of my posts in this newsgroup shows quite clearly that I do
not "reject" the aether. But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless. And I also know that no aether theory has any approach to
quantum phenomena, which makes them excessively naive.
The aether of the 19th century physicists was assumed to be a
-substance-. In the early days of physics electricity was assumed to be
a substance (some kind of fluid) which could be stored. So the idea of
the Leydan -Jar- was quite literal. Likewise heat was initially belived
to be a substance, the caloric which flowed in and out of material
bodies as they heated and cooled.

Substance based theories were eventually dropped from physics or have
become minimal. Physics is pretty well based on symmetries and fields
right now.

Bob Kolker
Ilja Schmelzer
2008-05-19 16:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Substance based theories were eventually dropped from physics or have
become minimal. Physics is pretty well based on symmetries and fields
right now.
A fair description of the current state of established science.

But that does not mean that this is a good state.

Note: Every substance may be (in some continuous limit) described with
fields. The reverse is not true. Thus, the substance concept has, in
general, more predictive power.

I expect you will also ignore my latest ether model? I'm able to
compute now not only the fermions, but also the gauge group of the SM,
as the greatest group which fulfills a few axioms.

ilja-schmelzer.de/clm/paper.pdf
Benj
2008-05-20 05:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
The aether of the 19th century physicists was assumed to be a
-substance-. In the early days of physics electricity was assumed to be
a substance (some kind of fluid) which could be stored. So the idea of
the Leydan -Jar- was quite literal. Likewise heat was initially belived
to be a substance, the caloric which flowed in and out of material
bodies as they heated and cooled.
Substance based theories were eventually dropped from physics or have
become minimal. Physics is pretty well based on symmetries and fields
right now.
Bob Kolker
In other words, Bob, Physics these days is based upon imaginary
mathematics rather than reality. Substance based theories weren't
proven wrong, they were simply ignored and swept under the collective
rug. The point is that Maxwell pointed out that there are only TWO
ways to transfer energy from point A to Point B. 1. by a particle
(duh. A substance!) and 2. by waves. If the action is 2. then it is
clear that waves need to have a MEDIUM in which to be propagated. And
that medium must be...you ready for this? ... a SUBSTANCE! Therefore
we find NO logical "out" with which to reject "substance based"
physics in any valid way.

Light it appears are particles and yet these light particles have many
properties of waves! How can that be? What is going on? nobody has a
clue! Of course also obvious is that the OLD aether theory of light
being EM waves of high frequency is totally bogus. The photoelectric
effect proved that. It's a puzzle. But saying that mathematics is the
"true" reality just isn't going to cut it. It would be a lot better
if physics would quit using skill in the manipulations of advanced
mathematics as "proof" of knowledge of the ultimate "physics" of the
universe. In truth it is no such thing.
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-20 07:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benj
Post by Robert J. Kolker
The aether of the 19th century physicists was assumed to be a
-substance-. In the early days of physics electricity was assumed to be
a substance (some kind of fluid) which could be stored. So the idea of
the Leydan -Jar- was quite literal. Likewise heat was initially belived
to be a substance, the caloric which flowed in and out of material
bodies as they heated and cooled.
Substance based theories were eventually dropped from physics or have
become minimal. Physics is pretty well based on symmetries and fields
right now.
Bob Kolker
In other words, Bob, Physics these days is based upon imaginary
mathematics rather than reality. Substance based theories weren't
proven wrong, they were simply ignored and swept under the collective
rug. The point is that Maxwell pointed out that there are only TWO
ways to transfer energy from point A to Point B. 1. by a particle
(duh. A substance!) and 2. by waves. If the action is 2. then it is
clear that waves need to have a MEDIUM in which to be propagated. And
that medium must be...you ready for this? ... a SUBSTANCE! Therefore
we find NO logical "out" with which to reject "substance based"
physics in any valid way.
Light it appears are particles and yet these light particles have many
properties of waves! How can that be? What is going on? nobody has a
It is so imaginary (especially quantum physics) that it has lead to the
computer on which you spew your nonsense and on GPS systems you can use
to find you way out of the the cul de sac in which you have placed your
self.

Science based on symmetry works! It has produced modern technology.

Here is a clue for you. What works, works regardless of how it works.
Nothing is as successful as success.

Classical physics has failed.

Bob Kolker
Art Deco
2008-05-01 02:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless.
Um.. a bit of circular reasoning perhaps? The fundamental tenet of SR,
the constancy of the speed of light _independant of the velocity of
the emitter_ PROVES the reality of light's carrier medium. Without the
medium, why is not the speed of light additive to the emitter's speed?
Why isn't the speed of light energy-dependant, or even infinite? If
space is 'nothing' and functionally void, what property of the
'Nothing' fixes its permeability/permittivity and dialectric constant
and sets the high, invariant propagation speed of light? Further, in
the absence of a carrier medium, why is there NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION?
These two Cardinal Points of Evidence (and a half dozen others
mentioned here many times) demonstrate a spatial medium of very high
energy density that not only fixes the speed of light, _but is of even
greater energy density than the most energetic wave it carries_.
Another Cardinal Point of Evidence is the *relativistic effects*
described by SR. Time dilation, mass increase, and foreshortening of
rods, demonstrate a medium becoming increasingly resistive and
"viscous" at high relativistic speeds. If space were 'Nothing', this
onset of "viscous-ness" could not and would not occur and there would
be no speed limit to anything, no mass increase, and no foreshortening
of rods at *any* speed.
SR is a set of **descriptions of effects**. SR does not explain the
_acting mechanism_ CAUSING those effects. Yet the very presence of
those effects are prima facie evidence by which the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_.
GR is likewise a set of **descriptions of effects**. GR does not
explain the acting mechanism CAUSING those effects. Just for example,
take one of the most dramatic demonstrations of gravity-in-action, a
supernova. What is the literal, active mechanism POWERING the stellar
collapse that powers the fusion that rebounds as the SN blast, leaving
that massive star crushed down to a black hole? Proponents of the 'no
medium', space-as-void doctrine are challenged to "fill in the
blank"____________.
Whatever powers the stellar collapse culminating
in a supernova is a very REAL force, not a pseudo or 'fictitious'
artifact of symmetries/fields, geometry, "curvature" of 'Something
that is yet Nothing'.. or of hordes of "exchange
particles" (gravitons).
Massive gravitational phenomena such as
quasars, supernovae and hypernovae, demonstrate a FLUIDIC spatial
medium under a state of pressurization far exceeding degeneracy
pressure of the atomic nucleus.
The behavior of gravity at all scales
demonstates the pressure-driven, accelerating Flow of that fluid into
mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. And it demonstrates
unification of gravity with the strong nuclear force. Per Occam's
razor, gravity is exactly what it _demonstrates itself_ to
be.
If you want Tom Roberts to see your reply, it might be a good idea to
not remove the newsgroups he reads regularly.
--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen
Surfer
2008-05-01 22:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Deco
Post by Tom Roberts
But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless.
I think it depends what kind of aether is meant. The following theory
is currently viable.
Dynamical 3-space: A Review
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Dynamical3Space.pdf

The frame dragging results of Gravity Probe B will distinguish whether
it or GR is the better theory.
Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/CahillGPB.pdf
Post by Art Deco
Um.. a bit of circular reasoning perhaps? The fundamental tenet of SR,
the constancy of the speed of light _independant of the velocity of
the emitter_ PROVES the reality of light's carrier medium. Without the
medium, why is not the speed of light additive to the emitter's speed?
Why isn't the speed of light energy-dependant, or even infinite? If
space is 'nothing' and functionally void, what property of the
'Nothing' fixes its permeability/permittivity and dialectric constant
and sets the high, invariant propagation speed of light? Further, in
the absence of a carrier medium, why is there NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION?
These two Cardinal Points of Evidence (and a half dozen others
mentioned here many times) demonstrate a spatial medium of very high
energy density that not only fixes the speed of light, _but is of even
greater energy density than the most energetic wave it carries_.
Another Cardinal Point of Evidence is the *relativistic effects*
described by SR. Time dilation, mass increase, and foreshortening of
rods, demonstrate a medium becoming increasingly resistive and
"viscous" at high relativistic speeds. If space were 'Nothing', this
onset of "viscous-ness" could not and would not occur and there would
be no speed limit to anything, no mass increase, and no foreshortening
of rods at *any* speed.
SR is a set of **descriptions of effects**. SR does not explain the
_acting mechanism_ CAUSING those effects. Yet the very presence of
those effects are prima facie evidence by which the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_.
GR is likewise a set of **descriptions of effects**. GR does not
explain the acting mechanism CAUSING those effects. Just for example,
take one of the most dramatic demonstrations of gravity-in-action, a
supernova. What is the literal, active mechanism POWERING the stellar
collapse that powers the fusion that rebounds as the SN blast, leaving
that massive star crushed down to a black hole? Proponents of the 'no
medium', space-as-void doctrine are challenged to "fill in the
blank"____________.
Whatever powers the stellar collapse culminating
in a supernova is a very REAL force, not a pseudo or 'fictitious'
artifact of symmetries/fields, geometry, "curvature" of 'Something
that is yet Nothing'.. or of hordes of "exchange
particles" (gravitons).
Massive gravitational phenomena such as
quasars, supernovae and hypernovae, demonstrate a FLUIDIC spatial
medium under a state of pressurization far exceeding degeneracy
pressure of the atomic nucleus.
The behavior of gravity at all scales
demonstates the pressure-driven, accelerating Flow of that fluid into
mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. And it demonstrates
unification of gravity with the strong nuclear force. Per Occam's
razor, gravity is exactly what it _demonstrates itself_ to
be.
If you want Tom Roberts to see your reply, it might be a good idea to
not remove the newsgroups he reads regularly.
Jeff▲Relf
2008-05-15 07:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Tom Roberts is lucky OldCoot doesn't crosspost.

F.Y.I., when Google Groups constructs a thread,
the “ Newsgroups ” field doesn't matter much.

For example, you can reply to Mr. NoEinstein
and ( at times ) David A. Smith without including Sci.Physics;
but many others won't see your reply, to wit:

Tom Roberts, Sam Wormley, and ( at times ) David_Smith.
Ilja Schmelzer
2008-05-19 15:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless.
False. My ether theory is obviously and clearly distinguishable from
SR,
because it gives, in a limit, a different theory: the gravitational
part gives
GR, the matter part gives the particle content (kinematics) of the
SM fermions and gauge fields.
Post by Tom Roberts
And I also know that no aether theory has any approach to
quantum phenomena, which makes them excessively naive.
Canonical quantization works fine for an ether theory.

(Agreements snipped)
Painius
2008-05-07 23:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Painius
The physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle.
Hmmm. I have no idea what an "improvement" on the uncertainty principle
would look like. Certainly the uncertainty principle itself is on solid
ground, as a rigorous relationship of Fourier transforms/integrals.
Oh, the UP is on solid ground, all right. It's just a
lazy scientists' tool used to explain away anything
that can't yet be understood. Hmm? Well, how
about the usage in cosmology where it is the UP
that accounts for a "disturbance in the continuum"
that eventually led to the Big Bang? Then there's
also how the UP calls for a continuous manufacture
of particle pairs to comprise quantum foam. This
lazy list is fast becoming endless.

So a good first improvement might be for science
to, as i said above, get off its dead ass and find the
actual true and real answers to questions rather
than to lazily fall back upon the UP every five milli-
seconds.

And a good second improvement would be to rid
science once and for all of such an unscientific
"principle". There is nothing more unscientific
than a natural principle that is rooted in uncertainty.
What happened to the good ol' days when those who
worked in science weren't ever even remotely happy
until they were pretty much "certain" about any given
reality?

If certainty seems impossible, then it's time to get
back to the ol' drawing board, as it were. It's never
time to fabricate and facilitate a so-called natural
principle that is nothing more than a lazy person's
impromptu abomination to science!
Post by Tom Roberts
Quantum gravity is HARD. But you don't seem to understand what that
means....
So Tom, is it your sincere desire to help me learn that
holds you back?
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Painius
And
cosmology with their godlike BB bulloney fares not
much better. Is it any wonder that scientists have not
found anything to reconcile relativity and quantum
theory?
It's easy to thumb your nose. Actually CONTRIBUTING to physics is very
much more difficult.
There is a valid place for both, isn't there? While i love
science very much, i'm not a scientist. I don't have the
detailed mind for it. And it's my love for science that
drives me to thumb my nose on some issues. For example,
i consider it unconscionable that physics possesses two
great and useful theories such as relativity and quantum
theory, and after many many years and even now here in
the 21st century, physicists seems no closer to reconciling
the two ideas than they were over sixty years ago.

Why do YOU think that is, Tom?
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Painius
Because the physics community thinks that so-called
"ether theories" are both uninteresting and useless,
it is paradigmly strapped with both uninteresting and
useless irreconcilable cul-de-sacs. And such will be
the case for many years to come. Just because of the
very thoughts you advocate here.
So you have a channel to some God that told you "ether is it"?
Nope, but since the present dead ends are getting science
nowhere, i think that Einstein's non-material aether ought
to be pursued.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Painius
If you're right, you're right, but whether or not you
are correct, there's no room for arrogance in science.
Such as your unsupported innuendos and insults above.
Nice try, Tom. Let me see if i've got this right... i see
you arrogantly putting somebody down as if they were
less than shit. I call you on it, then you try to turn it
around and make me look like the bad guy. No surprise,
i suppose. It's unlikely that you can see through yourself
as well as i'm certain everybody else does.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Painius
Not a single ether theory even hints at how it might
apply to quantum mechanics, and yet particle phys.
jump easily onto an uncertainty principle bandwagon!
Not a "bandwagon", but a mathematical derivation. I'm not claiming that
all of QM and QFT is rigorous (:-), but the uncertainty principle itself
is quite solid, given its antecedents. You seem to be focusing one one
quite limited aspect of quantum mechanics, without any concept of the
whole picture. That's unlikely to be useful....
Tom Roberts
Many years ago, science developed several applications
for electricity, lighting for houses, toasters, stoves and
ovens, etc., without actually having any clue about how
or why electricity worked. Scientists worked long and
hard to figure out that thing called electricity. And now,
we all can know pretty much all we want to know about
this pretty awesome phenomenon, thanks to science.

Quantum mechanics is pretty much in a basic state now.
There are many things we use right now that we owe to
quantum theory. But instead of particle physicists
busting butt to understand and explain the details about
it, one of the first things they come up with is a "natural
principle" that allows for enough uncertainty so as to
cloud nearly every issue. Rather than working long and
hard to figure out how to get the real and true picture,
now all they have to do is blame the UP and go play golf.

Sorry, Tom, but that sucks even more than gravity does!

Lose the UP and kick some theoretical ass!

THAT'S what science's benefactors are paying for. Not
nebulous uncertainty-principle applications. Real science.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
Jeff▲Relf
2008-05-09 08:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Uncertainty ( semi-randomness ) will vanish the day ignorance does,
and not a day sooner.. in other words: never.

Where will you be 24 hours from now ?
Based on your past history ( i.e. empirical statistics ),
you can come up with some probablities / uncertainties .

Why ? because your life is semi-random.
Benj
2008-05-20 04:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Painius
The physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle.
Hmmm. I have no idea what an "improvement" on the uncertainty principle
would look like. Certainly the uncertainty principle itself is on solid
ground, as a rigorous relationship of Fourier transforms/integrals.
Obviously you have no idea because you are so confused as to think
that mathematics is reality and reality is something that must conform
to mathematics. Sorry. Mathematics are all imaginary. They are NOT
real. They are self-consistent systems invented by men. Reality, on
the other hand just is what it is. There is NO requirement that
reality conform to your beloved mathematics!

Let's look into this just a bit. Suppose, if you will a segment of a
wavetrain in space. We can ask what is the frequency of that
vibration? But alas we observe that to know the frequency exactly, we
must have a wavetrain of infinite extent! And if the extent of the
wavetrain is limited, then there is an "uncertainty" in our frequency
measurement. Right? Why it's a PERFECT exposition of the famous
"uncertainty principle"! Too bad it's all bunk! All that falls out
of the Fourier mathematics NOT out of reality! In truth, if we have a
truncated waveform of even VERY limited extent, we obviously have an
ability to measure the period of each vibration of the vibrating part.
The inverse of period is frequency! Gosh, we've just measured the
frequency of something that our "uncertainty principle" says can't be
measured! Point is the waveform is what it is. It exists as it exists.
IT is REAL. Because it is real if one is CLEVER enough one can measure
it's properties in apparent violation of some mathematical rules.
Mathematical rules are self-consistent only WITHIN the system! Once
you jump outside the system, they are nonsense! Reality has NO
requirement to operate only within the rules of your mathematical
systems! Therefore all pompous statements that this or that thing is
"unknowable" are nonsense. Statements that say that "the best" we can
do to understand certain events is to calculate their "probability"
are clearly bogus. What if I told you that "the best" we could to to
"understand" a coin toss would be to calculate the probability of
"heads" or "tails"? You'd laugh! Well, what about all the physics of
forces from the thumb flipping the coin? What about the flight through
the air? What about the nature of the impacts as it lands? What about
ALL those dynamics? Are you willing to say that they are all
"unknowable"? Yet the dogma in QM is that just such a thing is
absolute truth! Someone needs to pull their heads out of the sand.



Any ideas for "improvements" yet?
Ilja Schmelzer
2008-05-19 15:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
The real problem with aether/ether theories is describing quantum
phenomena.
No. Quantization is a much harder problem for GR than for ether
theories.

We know how to quantize condensed matter theories. We don´t know how
to quantize gravity.
Post by Tom Roberts
Light quite clearly has quantum aspects, and to date there is
not a single ether theory that includes such phenomena, and not a single
ether advocate has even hinted at how any type of ether theory might
apply to quantum phenomena.
A lie. I´m proposing my ether theory of gravity for years with the
argument
that canonical quantization is much easier for an ether theory than
for GR.
Often enough for you to know about this, and that's why I call this a
lie.

To inform you about the state of the art of my ether theory: See
ilja-schmelzer.de/clm.
Post by Tom Roberts
To the physics community this makes ether
theories both useless and uninteresting, because quantum phenomena are
the central aspect of modern physical theories. And most experiments.
The physics community is simply ignorant today, if a theory does not
fit into some established community.

The reasons are sociological: The "publish or perish" ideology, the
necessity to be cited, the necessity to care for a job or a grant
every few years - all this forces the scientists to follow some
"modern" research direction, which has many journals to publish your
papers, many workers to cite you, and many working places around the
world to give you the next job.

Without such social pressures, it would be impossible for a single
research direction - string theory - to become the only game in the
town in a domain like quantization of gravity, which is completely
open to speculation, because the only observational restriction is to
give the correct limits QM and GR.
John Jones
2008-05-23 19:16:13 UTC
Permalink
monoethoxy ethane
Twittering One
2008-04-23 14:48:58 UTC
Permalink
It's what they used to give you when your teeth are rotten and you
need a dentist to pull one out with a pair of pliers.
Jeff▲Relf
2008-04-23 17:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Right you are..

I go completely numb after reading about OldCoot's Æther;
i.e. an invisible / unmodifiable hyper-pressure in the vacuum of space,
pushing down on us, attaching us to Earth's “ hypo-pressure bubble ”.
NoEinstein
2008-05-21 01:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
There is no aether.
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
Photons travel through empty space. No medium is necessary.
Bob Kolker
Dear Bob: The 'democracy' of the groups means that those who are
'wrong' get to reply, too. I have invalidated the 1887 Michelson-
Morley experiment by, among other things, having found that such
experiment lacks a CONTROL. So, ether is reinstated as the
fundamental force in the Universe! Follow my recent profile to get a
clearer idea what this means. — NoEinstein —
Tom Roberts
2008-04-20 15:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
Those are aspects of ether that the ancient (pre 1905) ether theories
had. Modern attempts at ether theories usually have them. The second is
the defining characteristic of ether, so it is true in all ether theories.
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
No ether theory has ever said what it is, other than saying "ether"
(which is of course no explanation at all). Refractive index does not
apply to the ether of any ether theory with which I am familiar.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
It must be, if light is truly an electromagnetic phenomena and if the
atomic theory is valid. Note that these two statements are among the
best-tested statements in science. Note that particulate ether advocates
would say that there is ether present, but it is not "filling" that gap.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
There are no relevant "laws". Rather there are models of the world, some
of which include ether and some of which don't. To date, the models that
include ether do not have any direct experimental support for the notion
that ether exists (i.e. nobody has ever isolated the ether and measured
ANY property of it). The best model we have today do not include any
ether: QED. It also has a wider domain of applicability than the current
best ether theories -- it "just so happens" that the best ether theories
are experimentally indistinguishable from classical electrodynamics
(which includes SR), which makes it completely impossible to find any
experimental support for the existence of their ether. In addition, to
date nobody has explained any quantum phenomena with ether, which is a
BIG reason why such theories are not studied actively by mainstream
scientists. There are a handful of ether advocates today who press on
trying to develop an ether theory that meets modern standards, but to
date none of them have been successful in convincing the physics
community of anything.
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
No.
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop.
In most if not all ether theories it is impossible to "remove" the ether
form any place.


One aspect of most ether theories that makes them extremely difficult
for physicists to consider is the fact that their advocates have almost
no knowledge of modern theoretical or experimental physics, and they
consequently write enormous amounts of nonsense. There are one or two
exceptions to this, but for the most part ether advocates are hopelessly
naive.


Tom Roberts
xxein
2008-04-20 18:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
Those are aspects of ether that the ancient (pre 1905) ether theories
had. Modern attempts at ether theories usually have them. The second is
the defining characteristic of ether, so it is true in all ether theories.
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
No ether theory has ever said what it is, other than saying "ether"
(which is of course no explanation at all). Refractive index does not
apply to the ether of any ether theory with which I am familiar.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
It must be, if light is truly an electromagnetic phenomena and if the
atomic theory is valid. Note that these two statements are among the
best-tested statements in science. Note that particulate ether advocates
would say that there is ether present, but it is not "filling" that gap.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
There are no relevant "laws". Rather there are models of the world, some
of which include ether and some of which don't. To date, the models that
include ether do not have any direct experimental support for the notion
that ether exists (i.e. nobody has ever isolated the ether and measured
ANY property of it). The best model we have today do not include any
ether: QED. It also has a wider domain of applicability than the current
best ether theories -- it "just so happens" that the best ether theories
are experimentally indistinguishable from classical electrodynamics
(which includes SR), which makes it completely impossible to find any
experimental support for the existence of their ether. In addition, to
date nobody has explained any quantum phenomena with ether, which is a
BIG reason why such theories are not studied actively by mainstream
scientists. There are a handful of ether advocates today who press on
trying to develop an ether theory that meets modern standards, but to
date none of them have been successful in convincing the physics
community of anything.
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
No.
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop.
In most if not all ether theories it is impossible to "remove" the ether
form any place.
One aspect of most ether theories that makes them extremely difficult
for physicists to consider is the fact that their advocates have almost
no knowledge of modern theoretical or experimental physics, and they
consequently write enormous amounts of nonsense. There are one or two
exceptions to this, but for the most part ether advocates are hopelessly
naive.
Tom Roberts
xxein: Show me gravity in QED.
Yousuf Khan
2008-04-21 01:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
No.
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop.
In most if not all ether theories it is impossible to "remove" the ether
form any place.
One aspect of most ether theories that makes them extremely difficult
for physicists to consider is the fact that their advocates have almost
no knowledge of modern theoretical or experimental physics, and they
consequently write enormous amounts of nonsense. There are one or two
exceptions to this, but for the most part ether advocates are hopelessly
naive.
For the vast majority of aether proponents, yes, that's an accurate
description, they do seem to be on the kooky side. But I doubt you can
say the same thing about Dr Hong Sheng Zhao, of the University of St.
Andrews. He's proposing a theory to unite Dark Matter and Energy into
one phenomenon known as Dark Fluid. His Dark Fluid would be a form of
energy that fills the Universe, acting like Dark Matter at the galactic
scales, and like Dark Energy at the cosmological scales. Dark Fluid
sounds suspiciously like Aether by another name.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy | Scientific Blogging
"The Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky is credited with the 1933 observation
that the universe and galaxies are held together by the gravitational
attraction of a huge amount of unseen material, now referred to as dark
matter, dark energy and dark fluid. But, the history of the aether goes
back many centuries before Zwicky. From the advent of Einstein’s Theory
of Relatively to Zwicky’s observation, not quite a generation later, the
aether seems to have been banned form scientific conversation, now it is
back but none dare call it the aether."
http://www.scientificblogging.com/recreational_number_theory/dark_matter_and_dark_energy

Yousuf Khan
NoEinstein
2008-05-21 01:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yousuf Khan
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
No.
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop.
In most if not all ether theories it is impossible to "remove" the ether
form any place.
One aspect of most ether theories that makes them extremely difficult
for physicists to consider is the fact that their advocates have almost
no knowledge of modern theoretical or experimental physics, and they
consequently write enormous amounts of nonsense. There are one or two
exceptions to this, but for the most part ether advocates are hopelessly
naive.
For the vast majority of aether proponents, yes, that's an accurate
description, they do seem to be on the kooky side. But I doubt you can
say the same thing about Dr Hong Sheng Zhao, of the University of St.
Andrews. He's proposing a theory to unite Dark Matter and Energy into
one phenomenon known as Dark Fluid. His Dark Fluid would be a form of
energy that fills the Universe, acting like Dark Matter at the galactic
scales, and like Dark Energy at the cosmological scales. Dark Fluid
sounds suspiciously like Aether by another name.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy | Scientific Blogging
"The Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky is credited with the 1933 observation
that the universe and galaxies are held together by the gravitational
attraction of a huge amount of unseen material, now referred to as dark
matter, dark energy and dark fluid. But, the history of the aether goes
back many centuries before Zwicky. From the advent of Einstein’s Theory
of Relatively to Zwicky’s observation, not quite a generation later, the
aether seems to have been banned form scientific conversation, now it is
back but none dare call it the aether."http://www.scientificblogging.com/recreational_number_theory/dark_mat...
        Yousuf Khan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Yousuf Khan: The 'dark matter' suppositions are based on the
implied expansion of the Universe resulting from the also supposed
Doppler shifts, or the reddening of the light coming from greater
distances. The actual cause of those shifts is (stated simply) an
aging of light. Light looses energy, but not velocity, as it travels
through the ether. Loss of energy = red shifts.
Ether itself has ZERO gravitational attracting for the rest of
the Universe. But FLOWING ether is what causes all of the forces of
gravity, anywhere. Because matter formation creates Swiss cheese-like
voids in the ether, and those voids likely have meniscuses of
magnetized ether, there is no continuous pressure medium to cause
either distant gravitational effects, or to cause (imagined) dark
fluid attraction.
Please follow my profile to get more detailed explanations. —
NoEinstein —
kenseto
2008-04-21 15:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
Those are aspects of ether that the ancient (pre 1905) ether theories
had. Modern attempts at ether theories usually have them. The second is
the defining characteristic of ether, so it is true in all ether theories.
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
No ether theory has ever said what it is, other than saying "ether"
(which is of course no explanation at all). Refractive index does not
apply to the ether of any ether theory with which I am familiar.
Wrong my ether theory gives detail description what the ether is. A
description of my ether theory is available in the paper entitled
"Unifcation of Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
It must be, if light is truly an electromagnetic phenomena and if the
atomic theory is valid. Note that these two statements are among the
best-tested statements in science. Note that particulate ether advocates
would say that there is ether present, but it is not "filling" that gap.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
There are no relevant "laws". Rather there are models of the world, some
of which include ether and some of which don't. To date, the models that
include ether do not have any direct experimental support for the notion
that ether exists (i.e. nobody has ever isolated the ether and measured
ANY property of it). The best model we have today do not include any
ether: QED. It also has a wider domain of applicability than the current
best ether theories -- it "just so happens" that the best ether theories
are experimentally indistinguishable from classical electrodynamics
(which includes SR), which makes it completely impossible to find any
experimental support for the existence of their ether. In addition, to
date nobody has explained any quantum phenomena with ether, which is a
BIG reason why such theories are not studied actively by mainstream
scientists. There are a handful of ether advocates today who press on
trying to develop an ether theory that meets modern standards, but to
date none of them have been successful in convincing the physics
community of anything.
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
No.
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop.
In most if not all ether theories it is impossible to "remove" the ether
form any place.
One aspect of most ether theories that makes them extremely difficult
for physicists to consider is the fact that their advocates have almost
no knowledge of modern theoretical or experimental physics, and they
consequently write enormous amounts of nonsense. There are one or two
exceptions to this, but for the most part ether advocates are hopelessly
naive.
Tom Roberts
David Thomson
2008-05-23 13:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
No ether theory has ever said what it is, other than saying "ether"
(which is of course no explanation at all).
That is not true. The Aether Physics Model (www.16pi2.com) quantifies
the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields. The
Aether has structure, and that structure is empirically related to the
structure of matter. A quantum Aether unit is exactly equal to 1.419
x 10^12 kg*m^3*sec^-2*coul^-2. This value is equal to Coulomb's
constant times 16pi^2. It can also be expressed in terms of the mass
of the electron, proton, and neutron.

The Aether constant given above also has geometry and exists as a two-
spin quanta.

There is abundance evidence for the Aether. The Aether is directly
observed by the observation of magnetic, electrostatic, and
gravitational fields. The Aether is directly observed by the
observation of solitons and phonons. The Aether is directly observed
by the observation of p-holes. The Aether is directly observed
through the observation of "frame dragging." In all of these cases, a
non-material yet real Aether is observed as having physical
properties.

For a good introduction to the Aether Physics Model, you can read:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

Dave


Refractive index does not
Post by Tom Roberts
apply to the ether of any ether theory with which I am familiar.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
It must be, if light is truly an electromagnetic phenomena and if the
atomic theory is valid. Note that these two statements are among theC
best-tested statements in science. Note that particulate ether advocates
would say that there is ether present, but it is not "filling" that gap.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
There are no relevant "laws". Rather there are models of the world, some
of which include ether and some of which don't. To date, the models that
include ether do not have any direct experimental support for the notion
that ether exists (i.e. nobody has ever isolated the ether and measured
ANY property of it). The best model we have today do not include any
ether: QED. It also has a wider domain of applicability than the current
best ether theories -- it "just so happens" that the best ether theories
are experimentally indistinguishable from classical electrodynamics
(which includes SR), which makes it completely impossible to find any
experimental support for the existence of their ether. In addition, to
date nobody has explained any quantum phenomena with ether, which is a
BIG reason why such theories are not studied actively by mainstream
scientists. There are a handful of ether advocates today who press on
trying to develop an ether theory that meets modern standards, but to
date none of them have been successful in convincing the physics
community of anything.
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
No.
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop.
In most if not all ether theories it is impossible to "remove" the ether
form any place.
One aspect of most ether theories that makes them extremely difficult
for physicists to consider is the fact that their advocates have almost
no knowledge of modern theoretical or experimental physics, and they
consequently write enormous amounts of nonsense. There are one or two
exceptions to this, but for the most part ether advocates are hopelessly
naive.
Tom Roberts
socratus
2008-05-23 14:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
No ether theory has ever said what it is, other than saying "ether"
(which is of course no explanation at all).
That is not true.  The Aether Physics Model (www.16pi2.com) quantifies
the Aether as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields.  The
Aether has structure, and that structure is empirically related to the
structure of matter.  A quantum Aether unit is exactly equal to 1.419
x 10^12 kg*m^3*sec^-2*coul^-2.  This value is equal to Coulomb's
constant times 16pi^2.  It can also be expressed in terms of the mass
of the electron, proton, and neutron.
The Aether constant given above also has geometry and exists as a two-
spin quanta.
There is abundance evidence for the Aether.  The Aether is directly
observed by the observation of magnetic, electrostatic, and
gravitational fields.  The Aether is directly observed by the
observation of solitons and phonons.  The Aether is directly observed
by the observation of p-holes.  The Aether is directly observed
through the observation of "frame dragging."  In all of these cases, a
non-material yet real Aether is observed as having physical
properties.
For a good introduction to the Aether Physics Model, you can read:http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Dave
Refractive index does not
Post by Tom Roberts
apply to the ether of any ether theory with which I am familiar.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
It must be, if light is truly an electromagnetic phenomena and if the
atomic theory is valid. Note that these two statements are among theC
best-tested statements in science. Note that particulate ether advocates
would say that there is ether present, but it is not "filling" that gap.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
There are no relevant "laws". Rather there are models of the world, some
of which include ether and some of which don't. To date, the models that
include ether do not have any direct experimental support for the notion
that ether exists (i.e. nobody has ever isolated the ether and measured
ANY property of it). The best model we have today do not include any
ether: QED. It also has a wider domain of applicability than the current
best ether theories -- it "just so happens" that the best ether theories
are experimentally indistinguishable from classical electrodynamics
(which includes SR), which makes it completely impossible to find any
experimental support for the existence of their ether. In addition, to
date nobody has explained any quantum phenomena with ether, which is a
BIG reason why such theories are not studied actively by mainstream
scientists. There are a handful of ether advocates today who press on
trying to develop an ether theory that meets modern standards, but to
date none of them have been successful in convincing the physics
community of anything.
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
No.
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop.
In most if not all ether theories it is impossible to "remove" the ether
form any place.
One aspect of most ether theories that makes them extremely difficult
for physicists to consider is the fact that their advocates have almost
no knowledge of modern theoretical or experimental physics, and they
consequently write enormous amounts of nonsense. There are one or two
exceptions to this, but for the most part ether advocates are hopelessly
naive.
Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
=============================
In my opinion to speak about Ether/Vacuum
using kg, m, sec.....etc - is not wais idea.
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-23 16:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
The Aether constant given above also has geometry and exists as a two-
spin quanta.
There is abundance evidence for the Aether. The Aether is directly
observed by the observation of magnetic, electrostatic, and
gravitational fields. The Aether is directly observed by the
observation of solitons and phonons. The Aether is directly observed
by the observation of p-holes. The Aether is directly observed
through the observation of "frame dragging." In all of these cases, a
non-material yet real Aether is observed as having physical
properties.
All that can be explained -without- aether. Aether is at most a
hypothetical object, not an empirically observed object.

Bob Kolker
Ilja Schmelzer
2008-05-23 19:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
All that can be explained -without- aether.
Have you an explanation without aether for the number of fermions of
the SM, the gauge group of the SM and its action on the fermions?

As simple as the explanation given in ilja-schmelzer.de/clm?
David Thomson
2008-05-23 21:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by David Thomson
The Aether constant given above also has geometry and exists as a two-
spin quanta.
There is abundance evidence for the Aether.  The Aether is directly
observed by the observation of magnetic, electrostatic, and
gravitational fields.  The Aether is directly observed by the
observation of solitons and phonons.  The Aether is directly observed
by the observation of p-holes.  The Aether is directly observed
through the observation of "frame dragging."  In all of these cases, a
non-material yet real Aether is observed as having physical
properties.
All that can be explained -without- aether. Aether is at most a
hypothetical object, not an empirically observed object.
Magnetic fields are the non-material reality of Aether. Anybody can
verify the existence of this non-material reality by holding two
magnets close to each other and feel the force, which requires no
collision of matter to cause.

Calling the non-material Aether a magnetic field does not change the
fact that it is still Aether. Calling phonons and solitons different
names other than Aether does not change the fact that it is still
Aether.

Also, quantum spin is an Aether property. Denying this fact does not
disprove the Aether. Nobody has disproved the Aether, yet the Aether
is observed every day in every aspect of science. Giving different
names to different aspects of the Aether only proves the Aether
exists. Denying the existence of Aether by calling it a different
name does not disprove the Aether's existence.

Dave
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-23 22:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Calling the non-material Aether a magnetic field does not change the
fact that it is still Aether. Calling phonons and solitons different
names other than Aether does not change the fact that it is still
Aether.
The magnetic field is not the aether which carries light. Mag fields and
electric fields are compenents of a four tensor. They are not
visco-elsastic substances.

The Aether of Maxwell was a superstiff space filling gelatinous goo
which was sufficiently rare (undense) as not to slow planets in their
orbits. Do you think any such thing can exist. The MMX show that no such
thing exists.

Bob Kolker
Post by David Thomson
Also, quantum spin is an Aether property. Denying this fact does not
It is no such thing.

Why not call quantum spin potatoe instead of eather. It has nothing to
do with the visco-elastic substacne that Maxwell and other physicists
believed existed and filled all of space.

Bob Kolker
m***@gmail.com
2008-05-24 01:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Aether is the immatterial.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
David Thomson
2008-05-24 01:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
The magnetic field is not the aether which carries light.
The magnetic field is one view of the Aether, and the Aether is the
carrier of photons. There is no such thing as light as a physical
thing. To say that light is a physical thing is like saying a river
is a physical thing. A river is a collection of physical water
molecules arranged in a general pattern. Light is a collection of
photons arranged in a general pattern.

The "speed of light" is again like saying the "speed of the river."
The river does not move, water molecules move. Similarly, light does
not move, photon move. Modern physics does not have enough
understanding of the physical nature of light to be talking about it
properly.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Mag fields and electric fields are compenents of a four tensor. They are not
visco-elsastic substances.
There is no such physical "thing" as a "four tensor." You are
presenting a double standard here. You deny the Aether exists because
it has non-material (yet measurable) existence, however, there is no
object measurement of a thing we could point to and say, "here is a
'four tensor.'" Your "four tensor" truly does not exist, either
materially or non-materially.

Also, magnetic fields ARE visco-elastic non-material substances. They
are structures composed of quantum rotating magnetic fields. You can
feel the visco-elastic structure of the magnetic field when you place
two magnets near each other.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
The Aether of Maxwell was a superstiff space filling gelatinous goo
which was sufficiently rare (undense) as not to slow planets in their
orbits. Do you think any such thing can exist. The MMX show that no such
thing exists.
The MMX cleary showed that a fluid Aether exists. Charles Lorentz was
able to use the MMX data to produce the Lorentz transformations, which
Einstein plagiarized for his Special Relativity theory. The Aether
envisioned by Rene Descartes, Augustin Fresnel, and John Bernoulli
(son) is the fluid Aether detected by the MMX experiment and which we
observe every day through magnetic fields, electrostatic fields,
gravitational fields, phonons, solitons, p-holes, frame dragging,
space-time curvature tensor, and in nearly every field of science and
technology.

Dave
David Thomson
2008-05-24 01:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Also, quantum spin is an Aether property.  
It is no such thing.
Why not call quantum spin potatoe instead of eather.
Because the quantum Aether unit is quantified specifically as 1.419 x
10^12 kg*m^3*sec^2*coul^2. The dimensions work out to the unit of
rotating magnetic field. A potatoe is a vegetable, which is a super
structure of subatomic particles. They are two totally different
orders of reality.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
It has nothing to
do with the visco-elastic substacne that Maxwell and other physicists
believed existed and filled all of space.
The spin of the Aether unit is determined from scientific
observations. By using the scientific method of dimensional analysis
and applying it to empirical particle data, we can absolutely quantify
the Aether as having two-spin. This is actually agreeable with GR,
which states that the graviton must have two-spin. The Aether unit is
the same thing as the graviton. The quantum of gravity is the same as
the quantum of magnetic fields and the quantum of electrostatic
fields.

For an introduction to the math, which demonstrates the spin structure
of the Aether unit, you can read:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

Dave
m***@gmail.com
2008-05-24 01:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Also, quantum spin is an Aether property.  
It is no such thing.
Why not call quantum spin potatoe instead of eather.
Because the quantum Aether unit is quantified specifically as 1.419 x
10^12 kg*m^3*sec^2*coul^2.  The dimensions work out to the unit of
rotating magnetic field.  A potatoe is a vegetable, which is a super
structure of subatomic particles.  They are two totally different
orders of reality.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
It has nothing to
do with the visco-elastic substacne that Maxwell and other physicists
believed existed and filled all of space.
The spin of the Aether unit is determined from scientific
observations.  By using the scientific method of dimensional analysis
and applying it to empirical particle data, we can absolutely quantify
the Aether as having two-spin.  This is actually agreeable with GR,
which states that the graviton must have two-spin.  The Aether unit is
the same thing as the graviton.  The quantum of gravity is the same as
the quantum of magnetic fields and the quantum of electrostatic
fields.
For an introduction to the math, which demonstrates the spin structure
of the Aether unit, you can read:http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Dave
Time fills all of space.

Time pushes light; slow time pushes slow light.


Mitch Raemsch; Falling light changes colour
David Thomson
2008-05-24 01:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Time fills all of space.
Time pushes light; slow time pushes slow light.
Mitch Raemsch; Falling light changes colour-
Hi Mitch. it is good to see a new free thinker. Help me to understand
your hypothesis. You used the word "push," which implies a force.
How many pounds of time are needed to push x pounds of light?

Dave
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-24 02:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Because the quantum Aether unit is quantified specifically as 1.419 x
10^12 kg*m^3*sec^2*coul^2. The dimensions work out to the unit of
rotating magnetic field. A potatoe is a vegetable, which is a super
structure of subatomic particles. They are two totally different
orders of reality.
Why not call your thing a quantum potatoe. It has nothing to do with the
aether that Maxwell, Michelson and Morley were talking about.

You think that by -calling- something aether you have proved a
substantial propostion? You have not. You are just playing with words.

The world is not made out of magnetic fields. For example photons are
not made out of magnetic fields.

Bob Kolker
Ilja Schmelzer
2008-05-23 19:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
No ether theory has ever said what it is, other than saying "ether"
(which is of course no explanation at all).
Wrong, my ether model says more, it describes the ether as a lattice
of elementary cells.
Post by Tom Roberts
The best model we have today do not include any
ether: QED. It also has a wider domain of applicability than the current
best ether theories -- it "just so happens" that the best ether theories
are experimentally indistinguishable from classical electrodynamics
(which includes SR), which makes it completely impossible to find any
experimental support for the existence of their ether.
Wrong. My ether theory gives the Einstein equations of GR in some
limit,
and my ether model allows to compute the number of fermions and the
gauge group and its action on fermions of the standard model of
particle
physics, which is much better than QED, which describes only the EM
field and an unspecified number of fermions.
Post by Tom Roberts
In addition, to
date nobody has explained any quantum phenomena with ether, which is a
BIG reason why such theories are not studied actively by mainstream
scientists.
As meaningless as a pretense against condensed matter theory that the
atomic models have not explained quantum phenomena. Of course, quantum
theory can and has to be _used_ to describe the behaviour of an ether,
in full analogy with the atomic models for condensed matter theories.
Post by Tom Roberts
There are a handful of ether advocates today who press on
trying to develop an ether theory that meets modern standards, but to
date none of them have been successful in convincing the physics
community of anything.
Because of the ignorance of this community.

For an example of this ignorance, wait for the reaction of Tom to this
posting. All what he needs to criticize my ether theory he can find at
ilja-schmelzer.de/clm and ilja-schmelzer.de/glet.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
No.
My ether model allows to explain the observed properties of the world,
especially many properties of the standard model (number of fermions,
gauge fields, their interactions) and gravity (EEP).

Of course, if there is an ether, it will be, nonetheless, possible to
describe all observable effects with "fields", simply by ignoring the
physical meaning of these fields in the ether model.
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop.
In most if not all ether theories it is impossible to "remove" the ether
form any place.
In my theory, in places where the ether is removed there is nothing.
No EM field, no gravity, no particles.
Paul Mays
2008-04-20 15:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
So Close...

--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
Igor
2008-04-20 15:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Ether is a flammable hydrocarbon gas.
Paul Mays
2008-04-20 16:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor
Ether is a flammable hydrocarbon gas.
Why didn't I say That.... Good catch..

Aether is sumthin altogether different..


--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
Ptrezby
2008-04-20 17:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Mays
Post by Igor
Ether is a flammable hydrocarbon gas.
Why didn't I say That.... Good catch..
You didn't say that because you knew that ether contains oxygen in the
molecule and therefore is not a hydrocarbon. And you knew that it may or may
not be a gas, depending on ambient conditions.
Post by Paul Mays
Aether is sumthin altogether different..
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
Paul Mays
2008-04-20 18:02:27 UTC
Permalink
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
Post by Ptrezby
Post by Paul Mays
Post by Igor
Ether is a flammable hydrocarbon gas.
Why didn't I say That.... Good catch..
You didn't say that because you knew that ether contains oxygen in the
molecule and therefore is not a hydrocarbon. And you knew that it may or may
not be a gas, depending on ambient conditions.
Well yea..theres that too. I did also know that but wasn't being picky as
the concept was the meaty part.
Post by Ptrezby
Post by Paul Mays
Aether is sumthin altogether different..
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
Igor
2008-04-20 21:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ptrezby
Post by Igor
Ether is a flammable hydrocarbon gas.
Why didn't I say That....   Good catch..
You didn't say that because you knew that ether contains oxygen in the
molecule and therefore is not a hydrocarbon. And you knew that it may or may
not be a gas, depending on ambient conditions.
Aether is sumthin altogether different..
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
For some reason I was thinking of ethane, rather than ether.
tadchem
2008-04-21 01:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ptrezby
Post by Paul Mays
Post by Igor
Ether is a flammable hydrocarbon gas.
Why didn't I say That.... Good catch..
You didn't say that because you knew that ether contains oxygen in the
molecule and therefore is not a hydrocarbon. And you knew that it may or may
not be a gas, depending on ambient conditions.
Post by Paul Mays
Aether is sumthin altogether different..
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
"Petroleum ether" is a mixture of volatile hydrocarbons, usually
prepared by distillation from crude oil at temperatures from 20° C to
75° C -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_ether

In general "ether" applies to a class of carbon compounds in which two
carbon atoms are connected by a single oxygen atom -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether
Note the definition in Wiki suggests that the alkyl or aryl groups are
substituted. This is not necessarily the case. The simplest ether is
dimethyl ether, in which neither alkyl group has substitutents.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
NoEinstein
2008-05-21 01:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor
Ether is a flammable hydrocarbon gas.
Dear Igor2: So is what comes out of your ... — NoEinstein —
Uncle Al
2008-04-20 20:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
[snip rest of crap]

1) Et2O isn't.
2) Neither is the other crap,

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation

3) Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Mark Earnest
2008-04-20 20:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the fluid like medium between heaven and earth,
which angels travel through by propelling angels' wings
there against.

It induces sleep, and whenever we sleep at night we
are part way into the ethereal plane.
tadchem
2008-04-21 01:51:04 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 20, 4:22 pm, "Mark Earnest" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Mark Earnest
It induces sleep, and whenever we sleep at night we
are part way into the ethereal plane.
Didn't Wonder Woman fly around in one of those?

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Mark Earnest
2008-04-22 04:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by tadchem
<snip>
Post by Mark Earnest
It induces sleep, and whenever we sleep at night we
are part way into the ethereal plane.
Didn't Wonder Woman fly around in one of those?
Sure she did. So did Spiderman.
Post by tadchem
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
m***@gmail.com
2008-04-21 03:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Einstein called it immaterial. Aether is massless.

Mitch Raemsch; falling light changes colour
vps137
2008-04-21 13:57:19 UTC
Permalink
On 20 апр, 20:20, Sanny <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's a good questaionaire
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
No, there are void without ether
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
True
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
Ether has no it
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
It made of tiny 4-dimensional particles, I named it apeirons.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
No
Post by Sanny
Is Ether Mass Less
Ether itself has no mass
Post by Sanny
Does Ether has a Volume
Yes, it has 4-dimensional volume
Post by Sanny
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
"Mass" means 4-dimensional vortex (or vortices) and it doesn't produce
resistance.
Post by Sanny
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Quite close metaphor
Post by Sanny
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
Yes, if to mean under vacuum part of our Universe.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
to be published
Post by Sanny
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
it's a task of next century
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
Just look around
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Yes
Post by Sanny
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Valery S.
vps137.narod.ru/physics.html
NoEinstein
2008-05-21 01:44:00 UTC
Permalink
It's a good questaionaire> Ether is something present everywhere
No, there are void without ether
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
True
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
Ether has no it
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
It made of tiny 4-dimensional particles, I named it apeirons.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
No
Post by Sanny
Is Ether Mass Less
Ether itself has no mass
Post by Sanny
Does Ether has a Volume
Yes, it has 4-dimensional volume
Post by Sanny
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
"Mass" means 4-dimensional vortex (or vortices) and it doesn't produce
resistance.
Post by Sanny
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Quite close metaphor
Post by Sanny
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
Yes, if to mean under vacuum part of our Universe.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
to be published
Post by Sanny
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
it's a task of next century
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
Just look around
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Yes
Post by Sanny
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Valery S.
vps137.narod.ru/physics.html
Dear Valery S: Imagine it and it's comforting; expain it to others
and its stupifying! — NoEinstein —
vps137
2008-05-21 11:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEinstein
It's a good questaionaire> Ether is something present everywhere
No, there are void without ether
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
True
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
Ether has no it
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
It made of tiny 4-dimensional particles, I named it apeirons.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
No
Post by Sanny
Is Ether Mass Less
Ether itself has no mass
Post by Sanny
Does Ether has a Volume
Yes, it has 4-dimensional volume
Post by Sanny
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
"Mass" means 4-dimensional vortex (or vortices) and it doesn't produce
resistance.
Post by Sanny
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Quite close metaphor
Post by Sanny
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
Yes, if to mean under vacuum part of our Universe.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
to be published
Post by Sanny
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
it's a task of next century
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
Just look around
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Yes
Post by Sanny
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Valery S.
vps137.narod.ru/physics.html
Dear Valery S: Imagine it and it's comforting; expain it to others
and its stupifying! — NoEinstein —
Dear Noeinsten, it's really not easy to imagine. I'd been reached this
picture not for a day. The best explanation of the idea you can find
at http://vps137.narod.ru/article2a.html when the treatment of the
Lorentz transformation is given and at http://vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html
where I give some
results of the model in a rather rough form. I will be pleased if
someone could comment it - without invectives preferably.

Valery S.
NoEinstein
2008-05-23 03:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Dear Valery: The M-M experiment failed because both light courses were
rotated in a single plane. As a result, both light courses’ times of
travel didn’t change. Said another way: M-M didn’t have a CONTROL
light course to which a TEST light course could be compared. Compare
something to something else that is identical, and the difference will
always be nil.
Space has three physical dimensions, not four. TIME is a
variable for describing an object’s location in space, but isn’t a
dimension. I have disproved Einstein’s notions by invalidating the
1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Lorentz’s screwed up explanation
for that nil result is what gave us “space-time”—ether or no ether.
Ether is VERY compressible. Do so, and the ether units I call
IOTAs get all tangled and form subatomic particles. Arrange those
just right and you have atoms; then molecules; then ponderable
objects.
Indeed, ether can form meniscuses! That is: surface tension of
IOTA’s joined magnetically, end to end. The shape of the Universe
within the bubble could be “potato” shaped, or one that is constantly
changing like a huge soap bubble.
Pressures in ether, like in a gas, flow from high to low.
Light can pass through ether easily, because light and ether are
one and the same. A typical photon is likely a small clump of tangled
IOTAs. The IOTA’s in the ether adjust their viewer specific rotation
(clockwise or counter-clockwise depending on which side of the IOTA
you are viewing) very quickly to allow the train of photons to pass
without resistance. That’s because the tangential velocity of an IOTA
is ‘c’. As a result of the “friendly” rotation of those IOTAs being
passed, the velocity of light traveling over long distances remains at
velocity ‘c’.
Light isn’t waves. It is just photons. Light will travel
perfectly well through the “Swiss cheese” voids between galaxies,
where there is little or no ether.
There could be other universes. Ether explains every observation
in nature… except how that energy came into existence. Saying that
God created the energy is fine with me, but that doesn’t explain how…
I don’t believe in micro universes, branes, nor string theory—
just the tangible macro variety of universes. But I admire the scope
of your thinking. For me the laws of physics are evident right here
on Earth. Get ‘that’ physics right, and the universe will explain
itself—by careful reasoning, of course! My contribution to science is
simply disproving Einstein’s theories. If interested, read the
following and then follow my profile for current discussions in these
same subject areas.

— NoEinstein — :-]

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Post by vps137
It's a good questaionaire> Ether is something present everywhere
No, there are void without ether
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
True
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
Ether has no it
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
It made of tiny 4-dimensional particles, I named it apeirons.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
No
Post by Sanny
Is Ether Mass Less
Ether itself has no mass
Post by Sanny
Does Ether has a Volume
Yes, it has 4-dimensional volume
Post by Sanny
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
"Mass" means 4-dimensional vortex (or vortices) and it doesn't produce
resistance.
Post by Sanny
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Quite close metaphor
Post by Sanny
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
Yes, if to mean under vacuum part of our Universe.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
to be published
Post by Sanny
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
it's a task of next century
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
Just look around
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Yes
Post by Sanny
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Valery S.
vps137.narod.ru/physics.html
Dear Valery S:  Imagine it and it's comforting; expain it to others
and its stupifying!  — NoEinstein —
Dear Noeinsten, it's really not easy to imagine. I'd been reached this
picture not for a day. The best explanation of the idea you can find
athttp://vps137.narod.ru/article2a.htmlwhen the treatment of the
Lorentz transformation is given and athttp://vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html
where I give some
results of the model in a rather rough form. I will be pleased if
someone could comment it - without invectives preferably.
Valery S.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
vps137
2008-05-23 08:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEinstein
Dear Valery: The M-M experiment failed because both light courses were
rotated in a single plane. As a result, both light courses’ times of
travel didn’t change. Said another way: M-M didn’t have a CONTROL
light course to which a TEST light course could be compared. Compare
something to something else that is identical, and the difference will
always be nil.
Space has three physical dimensions, not four. TIME is a
variable for describing an object’s location in space, but isn’t a
dimension. I have disproved Einstein’s notions by invalidating the
1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Lorentz’s screwed up explanation
for that nil result is what gave us “space-time”—ether or no ether.
Ether is VERY compressible. Do so, and the ether units I call
IOTAs get all tangled and form subatomic particles. Arrange those
just right and you have atoms; then molecules; then ponderable
objects.
Indeed, ether can form meniscuses! That is: surface tension of
IOTA’s joined magnetically, end to end. The shape of the Universe
within the bubble could be “potato” shaped, or one that is constantly
changing like a huge soap bubble.
Pressures in ether, like in a gas, flow from high to low.
Light can pass through ether easily, because light and ether are
one and the same. A typical photon is likely a small clump of tangled
IOTAs. The IOTA’s in the ether adjust their viewer specific rotation
(clockwise or counter-clockwise depending on which side of the IOTA
you are viewing) very quickly to allow the train of photons to pass
without resistance. That’s because the tangential velocity of an IOTA
is ‘c’. As a result of the “friendly” rotation of those IOTAs being
passed, the velocity of light traveling over long distances remains at
velocity ‘c’.
Light isn’t waves. It is just photons. Light will travel
perfectly well through the “Swiss cheese” voids between galaxies,
where there is little or no ether.
There could be other universes. Ether explains every observation
in nature… except how that energy came into existence. Saying that
God created the energy is fine with me, but that doesn’t explain how…
I don’t believe in micro universes, branes, nor string theory—
just the tangible macro variety of universes. But I admire the scope
of your thinking. For me the laws of physics are evident right here
on Earth. Get ‘that’ physics right, and the universe will explain
itself—by careful reasoning, of course! My contribution to science is
simply disproving Einstein’s theories. If interested, read the
following and then follow my profile for current discussions in these
same subject areas.
— NoEinstein — :-]
Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
Post by vps137
Post by NoEinstein
It's a good questaionaire> Ether is something present everywhere
No, there are void without ether
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
True
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
Ether has no it
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
It made of tiny 4-dimensional particles, I named it apeirons.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
No
Post by Sanny
Is Ether Mass Less
Ether itself has no mass
Post by Sanny
Does Ether has a Volume
Yes, it has 4-dimensional volume
Post by Sanny
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
"Mass" means 4-dimensional vortex (or vortices) and it doesn't produce
resistance.
Post by Sanny
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Quite close metaphor
Post by Sanny
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
Yes, if to mean under vacuum part of our Universe.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
to be published
Post by Sanny
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
it's a task of next century
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
Just look around
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Yes
Post by Sanny
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Valery S.
vps137.narod.ru/physics.html
Dear Valery S: Imagine it and it's comforting; expain it to others
and its stupifying! — NoEinstein —
Dear Noeinsten, it's really not easy to imagine. I'd been reached this
picture not for a day. The best explanation of the idea you can find
athttp://vps137.narod.ru/article2a.htmlwhenthe treatment of the
Lorentz transformation is given and athttp://vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html
where I give some
results of the model in a rather rough form. I will be pleased if
someone could comment it - without invectives preferably.
Yes, your view is rather interesting and maybe all really is made
from IOTAs. I think it will be a long time during it would be
disproved by experiment, if such experiment can be settled indeed.
Although the form for it, meniscus, you proposed seems to be very
peculiar too.
As for MMX I support those who don't believe in null result. 1.The
effect is very small for Earth velocity. 2.There isn't any ether
the Earth drifting through. My model is clearly depicting that and
some other features. If so, one may render all reality not in three
dimensional but in four-dimensional space leaving the time as a
simple parameter.
It will hard to disprove your vision of the Universe as a potato
shaped. Who can look on it from aside? The simplest form for it is
4D sphere in my picture and some observations test it true.
I never intend to disprove the SRT. Einstein is the great man for
his time and maybe forever. I invented the model only from curiosity
and the derivation of the Lorentz transformation was a kind of side
effect which I never tried to get.

Valery S.
NoEinstein
2008-05-24 02:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by vps137
Post by NoEinstein
Dear Valery: The M-M experiment failed because both light courses were
rotated in a single plane.  As a result, both light courses’ times of
travel didn’t change.  Said another way: M-M didn’t have a CONTROL
light course to which a TEST light course could be compared.  Compare
something to something else that is identical, and the difference will
always be nil.
     Space has three physical dimensions, not four.  TIME is a
variable for describing an object’s location in space, but isn’t a
dimension.  I have disproved Einstein’s notions by invalidating the
1887 Michelson-Morley experiment.  Lorentz’s screwed up explanation
for that nil result is what gave us “space-time”—ether or no ether.
     Ether is VERY compressible.  Do so, and the ether units I call
IOTAs get all tangled and form subatomic particles.  Arrange those
just right and you have atoms; then molecules; then ponderable
objects.
     Indeed, ether can form meniscuses!  That is: surface tension of
IOTA’s joined magnetically, end to end.  The shape of the Universe
within the bubble could be “potato” shaped, or one that is constantly
changing like a huge soap bubble.
     Pressures in ether, like in a gas, flow from high to low.
     Light can pass through ether easily, because light and ether are
one and the same.  A typical photon is likely a small clump of tangled
IOTAs.  The IOTA’s in the ether adjust their viewer specific rotation
(clockwise or counter-clockwise depending on which side of the IOTA
you are viewing) very quickly to allow the train of photons to pass
without resistance.  That’s because the tangential velocity of an IOTA
is ‘c’.  As a result of the “friendly” rotation of those IOTAs being
passed, the velocity of light traveling over long distances remains at
velocity ‘c’.
     Light isn’t waves.  It is just photons.  Light will travel
perfectly well through the “Swiss cheese” voids between galaxies,
where there is little or no ether.
     There could be other universes.  Ether explains every observation
in nature… except how that energy came into existence.   Saying that
God created the energy is fine with me, but that doesn’t explain how…
     I don’t believe in micro universes, branes, nor string theory—
just the tangible macro variety of universes.  But I admire the scope
of your thinking.  For me the laws of physics are evident right here
on Earth.  Get ‘that’ physics right, and the universe will explain
itself—by careful reasoning, of course!  My contribution to science is
simply disproving Einstein’s theories.  If interested, read the
following and then follow my profile for current discussions in these
same subject areas.
— NoEinstein —  :-]
Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
Post by vps137
It's a good questaionaire> Ether is something present everywhere
No, there are void without ether
Post by Sanny
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
True
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
Ether has no it
Post by Sanny
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
It made of tiny 4-dimensional particles, I named it apeirons.
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
No
Post by Sanny
Is Ether Mass Less
Ether itself has no mass
Post by Sanny
Does Ether has a Volume
Yes, it has 4-dimensional volume
Post by Sanny
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
"Mass" means 4-dimensional vortex (or vortices) and it doesn't produce
resistance.
Post by Sanny
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Quite close metaphor
Post by Sanny
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
Yes, if to mean under vacuum part of our Universe.
Post by Sanny
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
to be published
Post by Sanny
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
it's a task of next century
Post by Sanny
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
Just look around
Post by Sanny
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Yes
Post by Sanny
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Valery S.
vps137.narod.ru/physics.html
Dear Valery S:  Imagine it and it's comforting; expain it to others
and its stupifying!  — NoEinstein —
Dear Noeinsten, it's really not easy to imagine. I'd been reached this
picture not for a day. The best explanation of the idea you can find
athttp://vps137.narod.ru/article2a.htmlwhenthetreatment of the
Lorentz transformation is given and athttp://vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html
where I give some
results of the model in a rather rough form. I will be pleased if
someone could comment it - without invectives preferably.
Yes, your view is rather interesting and maybe all really is made
from IOTAs. I think it will be a long time during it would be
disproved by experiment, if such experiment can be settled indeed.
Although the form for it, meniscus, you proposed seems to be very
peculiar too.
As for MMX I support those who don't believe in null result. 1.The
effect is very small for Earth velocity. 2.There isn't any ether
the Earth drifting through. My model is clearly depicting that and
some other features. If so, one may render all reality not in three
dimensional but in four-dimensional space leaving the time as a
simple parameter.
It will hard to disprove your vision of the Universe as a potato
shaped. Who can look on it from aside? The simplest form for it is
4D sphere in my picture and some observations test it true.
I never intend to disprove the SRT. Einstein is the great man for
his time and maybe forever. I invented the model only from curiosity
and the derivation of the Lorentz transformation was a kind of side
effect which I never tried to get.
Valery S.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Valery S.: Your motivation is wonderful! But to qualify your
ideas, you must not lock-in any one concept as an absolute. If you
assume something that is wrong to be correct, all assumptions based
thereon will be wrong. That is what Einstein did, and girl did he
goof! Surface tension and meniscuses are one in the same. Try to see
the big picture, not the little pieces that don't quite fit. I'm not
interested in "selling" my ideas (convincing others), nor am I
interested in being sold on the ideas of others. Truths are their own
best salesmen! — NoEinstein —
kenseto
2008-04-21 14:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
Yes.
Post by Sanny
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
The ether is called the E-Matrix and the E-Matrix is composed of
compressed E-Strings. These E-Strings are repulsive to each other and
the diameter of these E-Strings is estimated to be e-35 meter. A
photon is a wave packet in neighboring E-Strings traveling coherently
toward the target at a speed of c. For a complete description of the
the E-Matrix please read the paper entitled "Unifcation of Physics" in
ny website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto
Post by Sanny
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
PD
2008-04-22 22:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ith the day when the bunny cometh and hideth eggth all around the
houthe.

PD
m***@gmail.com
2008-04-30 02:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Aether is fastest time.
m***@gmail.com
2008-04-30 02:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Aether is fastest time.
Yanick Toutain
2008-05-01 23:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Hello Sanny

I don't believe in that stupid "thing" : the ether

Are you a newtonist ?
Are you a partisan of atomOs in vaccuum ?
Do you think that the only true speeds are absolute speeds ?
do you agree with Isaac Newton?
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Yanick Toutain
2008-05-02 02:41:54 UTC
Permalink
你好Sanny

我不相信那件愚笨的“事” : 以太

您是否是newtonist ?
您是否是atomOs的党羽在vaccuum的?
您是否认为唯一的真实的速度是绝对速度?
您是否同意艾萨克・牛顿?
Post by Yanick Toutain
Hello Sanny
I don't believe in that stupid "thing" : the ether
Are you a newtonist ?
Are you a partisan of atomOs in vaccuum ?
Do you think that the only true speeds are absolute speeds ?
do you agree with Isaac Newton?
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
s***@space.unibe.ch
2008-05-19 11:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yanick Toutain
你好Sanny
我不相信那件愚笨的“事” : 以太
您是否是newtonist ?
您是否是atomOs的党羽在vaccuum的?
您是否认为唯一的真实的速度是绝对速度?
您是否同意艾萨克・牛顿?
Post by Yanick Toutain
Hello Sanny
I don't believe in that stupid "thing" : the ether
Are you a newtonist ?
Are you a partisan of atomOs in vaccuum ?
Do you think that the only true speeds are absolute speeds ?
do you agree with Isaac Newton?
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Byeyou
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
因为有电磁
我信有一个以太
谢谢你的中文翻译
Yanick Toutain
2008-05-20 02:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@space.unibe.ch
Post by Yanick Toutain
你好Sanny
我不相信那件愚笨的“事” : 以太
您是否是newtonist ?
您是否是atomOs的党羽在vaccuum的?
您是否认为唯一的真实的速度是绝对速度?
您是否同意艾萨克・牛顿?
Post by Yanick Toutain
Hello Sanny
I don't believe in that stupid "thing" : the ether
Are you a newtonist ?
Are you a partisan of atomOs in vaccuum ?
Do you think that the only true speeds are absolute speeds ?
do you agree with Isaac Newton?
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Byeyou
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
因为有电磁
我信有一个以太
谢谢你的中文翻译
zh ============> en
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=zh_en&trurl=http://groups.google.com/group/tw.bbs.sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/c5eac8c10b7c439d/0bdfc410034a7307?#0bdfc410034a7307
en =============> zh
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=en_zh&trurl=http://groups.google.com/group/tw.bbs.sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/c5eac8c10b7c439d/0bdfc410034a7307?#0bdfc410034a7307
chazwin
2008-05-20 10:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Aether has exactly the same qualities as phlogiston.
Look it up!
NoEinstein
2008-05-21 01:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
Dear Sanny: Having 'a little' knowledge means you need to start
getting some truths, not just status quo spoutings. I suggest you
read my posts, below, and follow my profile. — NoEinstein —

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
m***@gmail.com
2008-05-21 02:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Bye
Sanny
Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php
As Einstein said: aether is immatterial.

Mitch Raemsch
socratus
2008-05-21 05:05:00 UTC
Permalink
What is Ether?
=============
On my opinion, the Ether/Vacuum is the flat Pseudo-Euclid's space,
the Vacuum is the Minkowski 4-D continuum of space/time.
=========..
Minkowski tried to understand SRT using 4-D space.
Now we say :
" that it is impossible to see the fourth dimension.. ." Why?
Maybe because: we are in a "special kind of intelligence
is variably called schizophrenia. "
What is the reason of this illness?
The reason is hidden in abstract thinking about :
abstract ideal gas, abstract black body,
abstract inertial systems, abstract virtual particles,
abstract zoo of antiparticles, abstract
Schrödinger’s cat in a dark matter ,
abstract 4D, 5D, 11D, 27D , 52D and etc......
Is there a medicine for this illness?
Of course.
On the one recipe is written " Vacuum: T=0K",
On the other recipe is written " Light quanta".
If we don’t take this medicine our human society
will remain in the state of "schizophrenia". Save us God.
=======================.
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-21 10:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by socratus
What is Ether?
=============
On my opinion, the Ether/Vacuum is the flat Pseudo-Euclid's space,
the Vacuum is the Minkowski 4-D continuum of space/time.
=========..
Maxwell thought aether was a space filling visco elastic goo (like Jello
on crank) that was stiffer than Toledo Steel and rarer than Virtue. It
was so stiff it could carry waves transversely and so thin it would not
slow the planets down in their courses through the heavens. It was
concave and convex, it could serve either sex and kept itself clean in
between.

Maxwell and those who thought like him were wrong.

Bob Kolker
NoEinstein
2008-05-23 02:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by socratus
What is Ether?
=============
On my opinion, the  Ether/Vacuum is the flat Pseudo-Euclid's space,
the Vacuum is the Minkowski  4-D continuum  of space/time.
=========..
Maxwell thought aether was a space filling visco elastic goo (like Jello
on crank) that was stiffer than Toledo Steel and rarer than Virtue. It
was so stiff it could carry waves transversely and so thin it would not
slow the planets down in their courses through the heavens. It was
concave and convex, it could serve either sex and kept itself clean in
between.
Maxwell and those who thought like him were wrong.
Bob Kolker
Dear Bob: "Maxwell" is a name arm-chair physicists like to drop to
seem learned. But Maxwell had absolutely no reasoning ability. He
suggested to A. A. Michelson that Michelson try to detect a "slowing
of light" in passing through just a few feet of ether. No scientist
before me has realized that if "a little" ether could slow light even
1,000 th of a fringe, that light would be stopped in getting from the
Sun to the Earth, and we would all be dead. So, Maxwell was very,
very dumb. — NoEinstein —
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-23 02:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEinstein
Dear Bob: "Maxwell" is a name arm-chair physicists like to drop to
seem learned. But Maxwell had absolutely no reasoning ability. He
He made the classical electrodynamic equations work (by factoring in the
displacement current). It was his modification that revealed the
wave-like behaviour of light which lead to the development of wireless
communication. When Hertz proved Maxwell had made the right modification
to the field equations, he also invented the first radio.

Maxwell was the greatest physicist of the 19th century.

You are an idiot and an ignoramus.

Bob Kolker
m***@gmail.com
2008-05-23 03:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Dear Bob:  "Maxwell" is a name arm-chair physicists like to drop to
seem learned.  But Maxwell had absolutely no reasoning ability.  He
He made the classical electrodynamic equations work (by factoring in the
displacement current). It was his modification that revealed the
wave-like behaviour of light which lead to the development of wireless
communication. When Hertz proved Maxwell had made the right modification
to the field equations, he also invented the first radio.
Maxwell was the greatest physicist of the 19th century.
You are an idiot and an ignoramus.
Bob Kolker
Aether is immatterial.

Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
2008-05-23 03:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Dear Bob:  "Maxwell" is a name arm-chair physicists like to drop to
seem learned.  But Maxwell had absolutely no reasoning ability.  He
He made the classical electrodynamic equations work (by factoring in the
displacement current). It was his modification that revealed the
wave-like behaviour of light which lead to the development of wireless
communication. When Hertz proved Maxwell had made the right modification
to the field equations, he also invented the first radio.
Maxwell was the greatest physicist of the 19th century.
You are an idiot and an ignoramus.
Bob Kolker
Aether is immatterial.
Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Mitch: Ether can be immaterial or material! It is the "stuff"
that everything is made of—the unifying force in all of science! —
NoEinstein —
socratus
2008-05-23 05:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Dear Bob:  "Maxwell" is a name arm-chair physicists like to drop to
seem learned.  But Maxwell had absolutely no reasoning ability.  He
He made the classical electrodynamic equations work (by factoring in the
displacement current). It was his modification that revealed the
wave-like behaviour of light which lead to the development of wireless
communication. When Hertz proved Maxwell had made the right modification
to the field equations, he also invented the first radio.
Maxwell was the greatest physicist of the 19th century.
You are an idiot and an ignoramus.
Bob Kolker
Aether is immatterial.
Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Mitch:  Ether can be immaterial or material!  It is the "stuff"
that everything is made of—the unifying force in all of science!  —
NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
============================
[quote = "namelesss"
"Ether " indeed! Hahahahaha.......
===================..
1.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single
point,
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
2.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big
Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
and its temperature will decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach? Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
3.
Detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is
approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law
doesn't work. The cosmological constant in Universe is zero.
The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct only
in the local parts of Vacuum.
4.
About the theory of the “Big Bang” is written the thick
(very thick) books.
But anywhere do not write about the reason of the “Big Bang”.
Anybody does not know it.
I know.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
5.
On my opinion, the Vacuum is the flat Pseudo-Euclid's space,
the Vacuum is the Minkowski 4-D continuum of space/time.
Why?
Because the Minkowski 4-D continuum of space/time is
negative one. And we know only one negative space/time
continuum- it is Ether/ Vacuum.
6.
When an electron interacts with the Vacuum its parameters
become infinite. Why? What does mean?
============ ==============.
#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic."
/Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico./
======= ======..
NoEinstein
2008-05-24 02:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by socratus
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Dear Bob:  "Maxwell" is a name arm-chair physicists like to drop to
seem learned.  But Maxwell had absolutely no reasoning ability.  He
He made the classical electrodynamic equations work (by factoring in the
displacement current). It was his modification that revealed the
wave-like behaviour of light which lead to the development of wireless
communication. When Hertz proved Maxwell had made the right modification
to the field equations, he also invented the first radio.
Maxwell was the greatest physicist of the 19th century.
You are an idiot and an ignoramus.
Bob Kolker
Aether is immatterial.
Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Mitch:  Ether can be immaterial or material!  It is the "stuff"
that everything is made of—the unifying force in all of science!  —
NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
============================
[quote = "namelesss"
"Ether " indeed! Hahahahaha.......
===================..
1.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
 (all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
 muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single
point,
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in  T=0K?
2.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
 in a condition  of  T = 2,7K  (rests relic radiation of the Big
Bang ).
 But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
and its temperature will decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach? Not  T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
 we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING  T=0K.
3.
Detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
 (the average density of all substance in the Universe is
approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law
doesn't work. The cosmological constant in Universe is zero.
The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct only
in the local parts of Vacuum.
4.
About the theory of the “Big Bang” is written  the thick
(very thick) books.
But anywhere do not write about the reason of the “Big Bang”.
Anybody does not know it.
I know.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm,  we have named " a  singular point".
And action, when  the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
5.
On my opinion, the  Vacuum is the flat Pseudo-Euclid's space,
the Vacuum is the Minkowski  4-D continuum  of space/time.
Why?
Because the Minkowski  4-D continuum  of space/time is
negative one. And we know only one negative space/time
continuum- it is Ether/ Vacuum.
6.
When an electron interacts with the Vacuum its parameters
 become infinite. Why?  What does mean?
 ============ ==============.
 #
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
 is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
description
of something more complex? "
  / Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic."
 /Peter Milonni
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico./
======= ======..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Peter: What about a vacuum don't you understand? Two classes of
vacuums are those without matter, and those without matter AND ether.
There is no such thing as a universe (or space therein) that has
matter but not ether. Your 'credentials' might be impressive, if you
had good thought processes to match. — NoEinstein —
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-23 16:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEinstein
Dear Mitch: Ether can be immaterial or material! It is the "stuff"
that everything is made of—the unifying force in all of science! —
NoEinstein —
It is nonsense and balderdash. Where is the experimental evidence?

Bob Kolker
NoEinstein
2008-05-24 02:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Dear Mitch:  Ether can be immaterial or material!  It is the "stuff"
that everything is made of—the unifying force in all of science!  —
NoEinstein —
It is nonsense and balderdash. Where is the experimental evidence?
Bob Kolker
Bob: You are "here", aren't you? — NoEinstein —
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-23 16:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Aether is immatterial.
When and where has it ever been observed? How? By whom?

There is no aether.

Bob Kolker
David Thomson
2008-05-23 21:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by m***@gmail.com
Aether is immatterial.
When and where has it ever been observed? How? By whom?
The Aether has been observed by millions of people every day on Earth
and in space. Magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational
fields, phonons, solitons, p-holes, frame dragging, and space-time
itself are all manifestations of Aether. You can feel Aether when you
hold two magnets apart from each other. You would not deny the
existence of the magnetic field, yet magnetic fields are non-material
reality.

Dave
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-23 22:00:52 UTC
Permalink
David Thomson wrote:>
Post by David Thomson
The Aether has been observed by millions of people every day on Earth
and in space. Magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational
fields, phonons, solitons, p-holes, frame dragging, and space-time
itself are all manifestations of Aether. You can feel Aether when you
hold two magnets apart from each other. You would not deny the
existence of the magnetic field, yet magnetic fields are non-material
reality.
That is NOT aether. Aether is a visco-elastic goo that fills all of
space. It is stiffer than steel and vibrates transversely. Such a
substance has never ever been detected. The failure of the MMX to
produce evidence of such a substance pretty well shows it does not exist.

Fields are NOT the aether that Maxwell et al were talking about.

Bob Kolker
Post by David Thomson
Dave
David Thomson
2008-05-24 01:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Aether is a visco-elastic goo that fills all of
space. It is stiffer than steel and vibrates transversely.
If you are going to make such a claim, you need to fully quantify it.
Since you cannot, we can surmise that your version of the Aether does
not exist.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
The failure of the MMX to
produce evidence of such a substance pretty well shows it does not exist.
MMX DID produce positive data demonstrating the existence of a fluid
Aether. This is well documented in the scientific literature.
(Dayton C. Miller, Science, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 1635 (Apr. 30,
1926), 433-443) That is why Charles Lorentz developed his
transformation equation (which Einstein plagiarized). The fluid
Aether was proved and hence Special Relativity theory was made
possible.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Fields are NOT the aether that Maxwell et al were talking about.
If Maxwell was talking about your goo, then that would explain
everything. However, Descartes, Fresnel, and Bernoulli talked about a
fluid Aether. Even Einstein was talking about a fluid Aether, where
the Aether was synonymous with magnetic, electrostatic, and
gravitational fields.

Once again, denying the Aether's existence does not make it non-
existent. There is an abundance of evidence in observations of
magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational fields, frame
dragging, phonons, solitons, and p-holes, which clearly demonstrates
the existence of Aether.

Dave
NoEinstein
2008-05-24 02:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Thomson
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by m***@gmail.com
Aether is immatterial.
When and where has it ever been observed? How? By whom?
The Aether has been observed by millions of people every day on Earth
and in space.  Magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational
fields, phonons, solitons, p-holes, frame dragging, and space-time
itself are all manifestations of Aether.  You can feel Aether when you
hold two magnets apart from each other.  You would not deny the
existence of the magnetic field, yet magnetic fields are non-material
reality.
Dave
Dear Dave: Wow! Your are on the right team. Welcome to ether is the
"stuff" proponants! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
2008-05-24 02:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by m***@gmail.com
Aether is immatterial.
When and where has it ever been observed? How? By whom?
There is no aether.
Bob Kolker
Dear Bob: Put your hands over your eyes and there is no Universe...
HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
2008-05-23 03:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Dear Bob:  "Maxwell" is a name arm-chair physicists like to drop to
seem learned.  But Maxwell had absolutely no reasoning ability.  He
He made the classical electrodynamic equations work (by factoring in the
displacement current). It was his modification that revealed the
wave-like behaviour of light which lead to the development of wireless
communication. When Hertz proved Maxwell had made the right modification
to the field equations, he also invented the first radio.
Maxwell was the greatest physicist of the 19th century.
You are an idiot and an ignoramus.
Bob Kolker
Dear Bob: Being 'lucky' in one area and getting the analogies right,
doesn't qualify Maxwell to be considered very bright, overall.
Obviously, you've studied some (right or wrong) physics. Tell me,
Bob, why didn't you realize that the "slowing" of light by ether that
Maxwell proposed would rule out there being any life in the Universe?
— NoEinstein —
Robert J. Kolker
2008-05-23 16:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by NoEinstein
Dear Bob: Being 'lucky' in one area and getting the analogies right,
doesn't qualify Maxwell to be considered very bright, overall.
Obviously, you've studied some (right or wrong) physics. Tell me,
Bob, why didn't you realize that the "slowing" of light by ether that
Maxwell proposed would rule out there being any life in the Universe?
— NoEinstein —
Maxwell actually gave up on aether when he demoted it (in his 1865
treatise) to a pedagogical construct (something to make the material
easier to understand).

In addition to his seminal work on electrodynamics, Maxwell was one of
the founders of statistic thermodynmics, along with Boltzman (later on).

Maxwell, using Faraday's brilliant experimental material invented field
theory, or at least gave it mathematical form.

Bob Kolker
NoEinstein
2008-05-24 02:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Dear Bob:  Being 'lucky' in one area and getting the analogies right,
doesn't qualify Maxwell to be considered very bright, overall.
Obviously, you've studied some (right or wrong) physics.  Tell me,
Bob, why didn't you realize that the "slowing" of light by ether that
Maxwell proposed would rule out there being any life in the Universe?
— NoEinstein —
Maxwell actually gave up on aether when he demoted it (in his 1865
treatise) to a pedagogical construct (something to make the material
easier to understand).
In addition to his seminal work on electrodynamics, Maxwell was one of
the founders of statistic thermodynmics, along with Boltzman (later on).
Maxwell, using Faraday's brilliant experimental material invented field
theory, or at least gave it mathematical form.
Bob Kolker
Dear Bob: But he finally "rose to the level of his incompetence" when
he "supposed" that ether can DRAG light. And you show your
incompetence by worshiping at the feet of one who just lucked out.
Say enough things, and some of those things could be right. —
NoEinstein —
Richard Henry
2008-05-23 17:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanny
Ether is something present everywhere
Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.
What is refractive index of Ether?
If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.
IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?
Is Ether Mass Less
Does Ether has a Volume
When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance
Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?
Is Ether also present in Vaccume.
What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.
And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.
Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.
If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?
Whatever you think it is, that's not it.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...