"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
Rediug
(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether made
its presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their
butts from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples
follow.
Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability. If space is
"empty", what is it that has these properties? Since, if space consisted of
a volume of "nothingness", only a fool would assert that it could have any
properties other than volume. Since it does, space it would seem that it
does contain a rejected entity, which was called the Aether in the 19th
Century!
The velocity of light in free space is determined by the dielectric
constant and the permeability of space in accordance with accepted physical
laws. Similarly, the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined, using
an equation analogous to that used to determine the velocity of light, by
the elasticity and density of the steel. While a modern physicist seems to
assert that the existence of the dielectric constant and the permeability of
space does not require the existence of a medium (i.e.- the Aether) having
these properties, it seems certain that he would not be foolish enough to
assert that, since the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined only
by its elasticity and its density, he could remove the rod and retain the
density and elasticity so that the sound could propagate. One might
reasonably wonder if something is lacking in the mentality of physicists who
would tolerate such a double intellectual standard.
Special Relativity (and the Lorentz Contraction Aether Theory) tells us
that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source.
Such an independence is characteristic of a wavelike disturbance propagating
through a medium, it is not characteristic of an entity propagating
ballistically through "empty" space. For example, the sound of a rifle shot
travels at the velocity of sound in air and its velocity is independent of
the velocity of the rifle. The velocity of the bullet from the rifle,
however, is additively determined by the velocity of the rifle and the
velocity at which the bullet is projected. If we abolish the Aether the
observed independence of the velocity of light from the velocity of its
source would seem to require that some form of "magic" must be at work since
light would then have no way to determine how fast it is supposed to travel.
Since the writer finds the idea of "magic" accounting for observations in
the science of physics extremely hard to accept, he would be grateful if
someone could provide some other explanation, which does not require a
medium (the Aether). (P.S.- Handwaving arguments about spacetime don't serve
the purpose.)
If one examines Dirac"s treatment of the creation of complementary
particles from high energy photons, he finds that Dirac had to invent a "sea
of negative energy pervading all of space" in order to make his mathematics
work. Aside from the fact that "negative energy", in the sense that Dirac
used it, would seem not only to be unexplained but to be impossible, how
does that postulated "sea of negative energy" differ from the Aether? Both
say that "something" exists in a space which had been arbitrarily assumed to
be empty!
Current theory asserts that forces that "act at a distance" do so as a
result of "virtual particles" (e.g.- virtual photons, gravitons, gluons,
etc.) that pop into and out of existence so rapidly that quantum
uncertainties prevent the Law of Conservation of Energy from being violated.
There would seem to be at least two problems with this concept.
The first is the problem is the number of particles involved. At any
instant of time, every particle in the Universe gravitationally attracts
every other particle and they must therefore be exchanging gravitons.
Furthermore, these gravitons, since they are virtual, must be extremely
short lived. The number of gravitons involved in this concept is staggering.
At any instant for example, assuming that the presently accepted value of
10^80 particles in the Universe is reasonably correct, there must be at
least 0.5*(10^160) particles existing at one time. The size of this number
is increased by the fact that they must be short lived and therefore must be
replaced continuously (gravity appears to be continuous), suggests that a
bit of skepticism would be in order.
The second problem is that of explaining how the exchange of "virtual
particles" accomplishes the production of an "attractive force". The
production of a repulsive force by the exchange of particles is obvious. Two
athletes throwing a medicine ball back and forth experience a repulsive
force because of momentum exchange between them. There does not seem to have
ever been a viable explanation as to how these particles act to produce an
attractive force. The momentum exchange requirement to produce an attractive
force prohibits the production of such a force unless there is a substrate
(e.g.:- the Aether) with which they can exchange momentum. A boomerang
returns to the thrower because it exchanges momentum with such a medium
(air). If space were empty (no Aether), such a momentum exchange cannot
occur and the virtual particles could only produce a repulsive force. The
writer is aware that the mathematics associated with the concept of "virtual
particles" allows for the production of attractive forces. He is also aware
of the fact that there are many mathematically treated problems in which the
mathematics deals with conditions outside of other constraints related to
the problem and which limit the applicability of the mathematics. This would
seem to be such a case. Allow the Aether or its equivalent to be present as
a substrate and the mathematics of "virtual photons" works.
There are two interpretations of Quantum Theory. One interpretation
involves parallel Universes coexisting in the same space as our own that are
created every time that a particle makes a "quantum choice". This approach
not only suffers the problem of absurdly large numbers described for
gravitons, it requires that an amount of energy equal to the energy content
of our entire Universe multiplied by the number of particles in the Universe
be created at every instant of time. It also requires that the volume of
space occupied by each particle contain an amount of energy equal to the
energy equivalent of that enormous amount of energy. Since the writer
accepts the concepts that energy is conserved and two entities cannot occupy
the same space at the same time, he considers the interpretation to be
rather foolish.
The other interpretation of Quantum Theory requires that quantum
effects propagate at an "infinite" velocity. Most of the academic hierarchy
seems to consider this interpretation to be both "spooky" and wrong since
"Special Relativity clearly shows that nothing can travel faster than
light". To the contrary, Special Relativity shows the opposite. What it
shows is that an entity represented by energy cannot travel faster than the
velocity of light and the scientific community has fallen into the trap of
assuming that everything that is observable is represented by some form of
energy. The reason that the Special Theory of Relativity imposes its
restrictions on velocity is that the Lorentz Transformation for energy, in a
force-length-time system of units, is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5. This means that, at
the velocity of light, energy becomes infinite and that, at velocities above
that of light, energy becomes imaginary. The effect is a limitation on the
velocity of propagation of energy. As a result, any form of communication
that involves the encoding of information in the form of energy is limited
to the velocity of light.
Experiments have shown that the polarization of "paired photons" is
coupled so that changing the polarization direction (the quantum number) of
one causes the polarization direction of the other to change in
correspondence. In addition to demonstrating this polarization coupling,
experiments performed in the '80s have also shown that the polarization
coupling propagates at least 4 times the velocity of light and perhaps at an
infinite velocity. (It should be noted that changing the polarization
direction of a photon does not change its energy content so the coupling of
polarization direction between them does not involve energy transfer).
The polarization direction of the photon is an angle that is measured
in radians (the distance along an arc divide by the radius of that arc). The
Lorentz Transformation for Angle is therefore equal to the Lorentz
Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for Length
and is therefore equal to unity and is independent of velocity. (Above and
below a velocity of C, the value of unity is obvious. At the velocity of C,
the value is nominally indeterminate but can be shown to be equal to the
value of unity by borrowing a technique from Calculus). With a value of
unity for the Lorentz Transformation for Angle, it seems reasonable to
assert that Special Relativity requires the polarization coupling of paired
photons to travel at the infinite velocity required by the second, more
rational interpretation of Quantum Theory. Assuming that this is the case,
then the current concept of "spacetime" as a single entity must be in error.
An absolute time and velocity reference is required.
If one examines both the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and the
Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (LCAT), he finds that they are actually
the same theory in that they are cross derivable. (LCAT) is actually a
special case solution of (STR) and cannot be disproved without disproving
(STR) as well. LCAT asserts that the Aether exists but because information
cannot propagate faster than light (quantum theory tells us that this is not
true), we cannot find our velocity with respect to it. STR tells us that
because our velocity with respect to the Aether cannot be measured, it does
not exist in the theory! It does not preclude its existence or its effect
from being observed by other means. Dr. Einstein asserted, "remember
gentlemen, we have not disproved the existence of the Aether, we have only
proven that we do not need it (for computations)".
An objection to the existence of the Aether has been raised. This
objection is that if the Aether exists, "absolute time" would also have to
exist. The idea of absolute time has, however, been abolished in physical
theory. Unfortunately, its rejection did not result from physical
observation or from logical deductions based on previously proven facts. It
is based solely upon a consensus viewpoint. In other words, that rejection
is based upon an unproven (and probably unprovable opinion) rather than upon
fact. The motivation for this opinion would seem to be an overwhelming urge
on the part of physicists to consider space and time to be aspects of the
same structure, spacetime, as viewed from different reference frames so as
to make their mathematical treatment "elegant". Nature doesn't care about
what we would like to be true and there is no objectively valid reason to
accept the viewpoint.
It is claimed that the concept of spacetime rather than space and time
as separate entities yields a simpler solution and, according to the
principle of Ockham's Razor, must therefore be the correct one. It is true,
mathematical solutions employing the spacetime concept are much simpler than
solutions involving the Aether, but the solutions are not simpler with
respect to reality. As Dr. Einstein, who maintained a belief in "absolute
time" for 25 years after the publication of Special Relativity exclaimed,
the "concept of spacetime requires an infinite number of Aethers" as indeed
it does. Once one realizes this, Ockham's Razor would lead any reasonable
man to the Aether and not to the concept of "spacetime" as a single entity.
Unfortunately, Modern Physics seems to have been taken over by
mathematical idiot savants who lack an appreciation for the implications of
mechanism and strive to suppress the contributions of those who would dare
to say "Hey, wait a minute"
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einste...@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
KONCHOK.PENDAY
Rediug [red...@verizon.net] wrote:
> "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
>
> (See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
>
> It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no
experimental evidence of the Aether.
IS THAT LIKE THE "TRUTH" OF GLOBAL WARMING?
> This seems surprising because, if the Aether made
> its presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks
> on their butts from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them.
TEETH MARKS?
AETHER CHEWED A
HOLE RIGHT THRU!
> A few examples follow.
>
> Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two
> observable properties, its dielectric constant and its
> permeability. If space is "empty", what is it that
> has these properties? Since, if space consisted
> of a volume of "nothingness", only a fool would assert
> that it could have any properties other than volume.
ERGO: SPACE "SCIENTISTS" ARE STUPID FOOLS!
PIMPING THE PREPOSTEROUS PAID-FOR PARADYM!
JUST LIKE GLOBAL WARMING "SCIENTISTS"!
> Since it does, space it would seem that it does
> contain a rejected entity, which was called the
> Aether in the 19th Century!
YES. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE WITHOUT AETHER!
WITHOUT AETHER, GRAVITY, MAGNETICS, ELECTROSTATICS,
ETC. ARE JUST INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLE MYSTERIES!
THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING LIKE "ACTION AT A DISTANCE"!
IT'S TOTALLY BOGUS GOVERNMEAT NONSENSE!
BUT 18TH CENTURY AETHER THEORY WAS RADICALLY FLAWED!
THEY THOUGHT AETHER WAS A SOLID!
HOW COULD SOLIDS MOVE THRU SOLIDS?
OBVIOUSLY, THAT POSES A BIG PROBLEM!
WHICH THEY SIMPLY IGNORED!
THE OTHER BIG PROBLEM WAS THEY
THOUGHT THE AETHER WAS AT REST!
SO THEIR THEORY BIT SHIT BAD!
THEY HAD THE RIGHT IDEA!
BUT THE DETAILS WERE WRONG!
THEY THOUGHT AETHER HAD TO BE A SOLID
BECAUSE IT WAS SO DENSE AND
TRANSMITTED VIBRATIONS SO WELL!
BUT THAT WAS A *HUGE* ERROR!
STEVE RADO HAS FINALLY
CORRECTED THESE ERRORS FULLY!
THE AETHER IS AN
EXTREMELY DENSE *GAS*!
STEVE RADO HAS FINALLY
CORRECTED THESE ERRORS FULLY!
GET YOUR *FREE CLUES* NOW!
> TThe velocity of light in free space is determined by the dielectric
> constant and the permeability of space in accordance with accepted
> physical laws. Similarly, the velocity of sound in a steel rod is
> determined, using an equation analogous to that used to determine the
> velocity of light, by the elasticity and density of the steel. While a
> modern physicist seems to assert that the existence of the dielectric
> constant and the permeability of space does not require the existence
> of a medium (i.e.- the Aether) having these properties, it seems
> certain that he would not be foolish enough to assert that, since
> the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined only by its
> elasticity and its density, he could remove the rod and retain the
> density and elasticity so that the sound could propagate.
YES!
Why not get a government grant?
> One might reasonably wonder if something is lacking
> in the mentality of physicists who would tolerate such
> a double intellectual standard.
THEY LACK CASH!
> Special Relativity (and the Lorentz Contraction Aether Theory)
> tells us that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity
> of its source.
YES.
WAVES TRAVEL AT
THE SPEED OF WAVES!
NO MATTER HOW FAST
THE BOAT WAS GOING!
> Such an independence is characteristic of a wavelike disturbance
> propagating through a medium, it is not characteristic of an entity
> propagating ballistically through "empty" space. For example, the
> sound of a rifle shot travels at the velocity of sound in air and
> its velocity is independent of the velocity of the rifle.
YES!
ALSO INDEPENDENT OF THE
VELOCITY OF THE BULLET!
> The velocity of the bullet from the rifle, however, is
> additively determined by the velocity of the rifle
> and the velocity at which the bullet is projected.
YES.
> If we abolish the
> Aether the observed independence of the velocity of light from the
> velocity of its source would seem to require that some form of "magic"
> must be at work since light would then have no way to determine how
> fast it is supposed to travel. Since the writer finds the idea of
> "magic" accounting for observations in the science of physics
> extremely hard to accept, he would be grateful if someone could
> provide some other explanation, which does not require a medium
> (the Aether). (P.S.- Handwaving arguments about spacetime
> don't serve the purpose.)
EINSTEIN'S MENTAL FECES SERVES NO PURPOSE.
> If one examines Dirac"s treatment of the creation of complementary
> particles from high energy photons, he finds that Dirac had to invent
> a "sea of negative energy pervading all of space" in order to make his
> mathematics work. Aside from the fact that "negative energy", in the
> sense that Dirac used it, would seem not only to be unexplained but
> to be impossible, how does that postulated "sea of negative energy"
> differ from the Aether? Both say that "something" exists in a space
> which had been arbitrarily assumed to be empty!
YES.
BUT YOU NEED TO CAREFULLY
EXAMINE THAT SOMETHING TO
DISCERN IT'S PROPERTIES!
> Current theory asserts that forces that "act at a distance" do
> so as a result of "virtual particles" (e.g.- virtual photons,
> gravitons, gluons, etc.) that pop into and out of existence
> so rapidly that quantum uncertainties prevent the Law of
> Conservation of Energy from being violated.
OF COURSE, THAT'S ALL JUST HYSTERICAL
BULLSHIT FROM INSANE SELF-DELUDED MORONS!
> There would seem to be at least two problems with this concept.
>
> The first is the problem is the number of particles involved.
> At any instant of time, every particle in the Universe
> gravitationally attracts every other particle and they
> must therefore be exchanging gravitons.
JUST AS WE HEXCHANGE "VIRTUAL DOLLARS"
THROUGH MAGIC "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES"!
SEE HOW THAT WORKS?
> Furthermore, these gravitons, since they
> are virtual, must be extremely short lived.
THEY HAVE AN IMAGINARY LIFESPAN, AS
WELL AS IMAGINARY MASS AND FORCE!
THAT'S PERFECTLY CONSISTENT, AS THEY
ARE CREATED BY THOSE WHO JUST IMAGINE
THAT THEY REALLY *ARE* PHYSICISTS!
DESPITE ALL THE EVIDENCE!
> The number of gravitons involved in this concept is
> staggering. At any instant for example, assuming that the presently
> accepted value of 10^80 particles in the Universe is reasonably
> correct,
SINCE WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW BIG THE UNIVERSE IS,
HOW DO THEY COME UP WITH THAT "ACCEPTED" FIGURE?
THE SAME WAY THE CLIMATE "SCIENTISTS" CAME UP WITH
THEIR "SETTLED AND ACCEPTED" "GLOBAL WARMING FACTS"?
> there must be at least 0.5*(10^160) particles existing at
> one time. The size of this number is increased by the fact
> that they must be short lived and therefore must be replaced
> continuously (gravity appears to be continuous), suggests
> that a bit of skepticism would be in order.
AT LEAST 10^150 SKEPTICAL ANTI-PARTICLES
ARE NEEDED TO RESTORE BASIC SANITY!
> The second problem is that of explaining how the exchange of "virtual
> particles" accomplishes the production of an "attractive force". The
> production of a repulsive force by the exchange of particles is
> obvious.
EVERYTHING ABOUT "VIRTUAL PARTICLES" IS REPULSIVE!
> Two athletes throwing a medicine ball back and forth experience a
> repulsive force because of momentum exchange between them. There
> does not seem to have ever been a viable explanation as to how these
BECAUSE THERE *IS NO* VIABLE EXPLANATION!
> particles act to produce an attractive force. The momentum
> exchange requirement to produce an attractive force prohibits
> the production of such a force unless there is a substrate
> (e.g.:- the Aether) with which they can exchange momentum.
> A boomerang returns to the thrower because it exchanges
> momentum with such a medium (air). If space were empty
> (no Aether), such a momentum exchange cannot occur
> and the virtual particles could only produce
> a repulsive force.
VIRTUAL PARTICLES ARE THE
"MODERN" EQUIVALENT OF:
*EPICYCLES
*ANGELS DANCING ON THE HEAD OF A PIN
*DEFICIT FINANCING FOR PROSPERITY
> The writer is aware that the mathematics
> associated with the concept of "virtual particles" allows for the
> production of attractive forces. He is also aware of the fact that
> there are many mathematically treated problems in which the
> mathematics deals with conditions outside of other constraints
> related to the problem and which limit the applicability of the
> mathematics. This would seem to be such a case.
MATHEMATICS CAN, AND DOES,
CALCULATE VERY PRECISELY
*ANY* IMAGINARY SCENARIO!
BUT IT'S STILL IMAGINARY!
> Allow the Aether or its equivalent to be present as a
> substrate and the mathematics of "virtual photons" works.
ALL MATHEMATICS WORKS!
WHETHER IT DEALS WITH
ANYTHING REAL, OR NOT!
> There are two interpretations of Quantum Theory.
HORSESHIT OR BULLSHIT!
YOU CHOOSE!
> One interpretation
> involves parallel Universes coexisting in the same space as our own
> that are created every time that a particle makes a "quantum choice".
> This approach not only suffers the problem of absurdly
> large numbers described for gravitons, it requires that
> an amount of energy equal to the energy content of our
> entire Universe multiplied by the number of particles in
> the Universe be created at every instant of time.
*NOTHING* IS IMPOSSIBLE
IF YOU HAVE GOD'S LOVE!
> It also requires that the volume of space occupied
> by each particle contain an amount of energy equal
> to the energy equivalent of that enormous amount of energy.
THAT *PROVES* GOD'S LOVE
IS THE MOST POWERFUL THING
IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!
THE TIME FOR TALK IS OVER!
> Since the writer accepts the concepts that energy
> is conserved and two entities cannot occupy the same
> space at the same time, he considers the
> interpretation to be rather foolish.
OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE YOU ARE
A RETROGRADE RETARD WHO
JUST DOESN'T GET MATH!
> The other interpretation of Quantum Theory requires that quantum
> effects propagate at an "infinite" velocity. Most of the academic
> hierarchy seems to consider this interpretation to be both "spooky"
> and wrong since "Special Relativity clearly shows that nothing can
> travel faster than light".
Einstein hoax quoting Einstein?
What's wrong with this picture?
> To the contrary, Special Relativity shows the opposite.
> What it shows is that an entity represented by energy cannot
> travel faster than the velocity of light and the scientific
> community has fallen into the trap of assuming that everything
> that is observable is represented by some form of energy.
SOME PEOPLE THRIVE
IN THAT VERY TRAP!
> The reason that the Special Theory of
> Relativity imposes its restrictions on velocity is that the Lorentz
> Transformation for energy, in a force-length-time system of units, is
> 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5. This means that, at the velocity of light, energy
> becomes infinite and that, at velocities above that of light, energy
> becomes imaginary.
THAT'S EASY TO IMAGINE!
JUST LIKE SUPERMAN AND
THE INCREDIBLE HULK!
A CHILD COULD DO IT!
NONSENSE IS *NOT AT ALL*
A PROBLEM TO IMAGINATION!
WHAT WOULD YOU DO
IF YOU WERE THE
KING OF THE WORLD?
> The effect is a limitation on the velocity of
> propagation of energy. As a result, any form of communication that
> involves the encoding of information in the form of energy is limited
> to the velocity of light.
BECAUSE THAT'S THE SPEED LIMIT!
> Experiments have shown that the polarization of "paired photons" is
> coupled so that changing the polarization direction (the quantum
> number) of one causes the polarization direction of the other to
> change in correspondence. In addition to demonstrating this
> polarization coupling, experiments performed in the '80s have
> also shown that the polarization coupling propagates at least
> 4 times the velocity of light and perhaps at an infinite velocity.
AT LEAST SOMEONE *SAID* THAT!
WHO CARES IF THEY WERE JUST MAD
WANKERS SPENDING TAX DOLLARS?
> (It should be noted that changing the polarization
> direction of a photon does not change its energy content
> so the coupling of polarization direction between them does
> not involve energy transfer).
WANK IS NOT ENERGY!
> The polarization direction of the photon is an angle that
> is measured in radians (the distance along an arc divided
> by the radius of that arc).
DULLY NOTED.
> The Lorentz Transformation for Angle is therefore equal to the Lorentz
> Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for
> Length and is therefore equal to unity and is independent of velocity.
> (Above and below a velocity of C, the value of unity is obvious.
????
> At the velocity of C, the value is nominally indeterminate
> but can be shown to be equal to the value of unity by
> borrowing a technique from Calculus). With a value
> of unity for the Lorentz Transformation for Angle, it seems
> reasonable to assert that Special Relativity requires the
> polarization coupling of paired photons to travel at the infinite
> velocity required by the second, more rational interpretation of
> Quantum Theory.
GIVEN TWO SCREAMINGLY INSANE INTERPRETATIONS
OF A SCREAMINGLY INSANE THEORY, *HOW* DO YOU
DECIDE WHICH IS "MORE RATIONAL"? SO WHAT?
> Assuming that this is the case, then the current
> concept of "spacetime" as a single entity must be
> in error. An absolute time and velocity reference is required.
SPACETIME IS JUST REINDEER SHIT
FROM SANTA'S MAGIC REINDEER!
> If one examines both the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and the
> Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (LCAT), he finds that they are
> actually the same theory in that they are cross derivable. (LCAT) is
> actually a special case solution of (STR) and cannot be disproved
> without disproving (STR) as well.
THAT'S BECAUSE EINSTEIN STOLE
ALL OF "HIS WORK" FROM ALREADY
PUBLISHED PAPERS ... ON AETHER!
> LCAT asserts that the Aether exists but because information
> cannot propagate faster than light (quantum theory tells us
> that this is not true), we cannot find our velocity with
> respect to it. STR tells us that because our velocity with
> respect to the Aether cannot be measured, it does not exist
> in the theory! It does not preclude its existence or its
> effect from being observed by other means.
IT'S *EASY* TO MEASURE
THE VELOCITY OF AETHER
WITH RESPECT TO YOU!
JUST JUMP OFF A TALL BUILDING!
*FEEL* THE AETHER WIND BRING YOU
UP TO AETHER-SPEED QUITE QUICKLY!
[UNTIL YOU HIT THE GROUND!]
> Dr. Einstein asserted,
> "remember gentlemen, we have not disproved the existence of the
> Aether, we have only proven that we do not need it (for
> Computations)".
A MATHEMATICIAN NEEDS
NOTHING AT ALL TO COMPUTE!
> An objection to the existence of the Aether has been raised. This
> objection is that if the Aether exists, "absolute time" would also
> have to exist. The idea of absolute time has, however, been abolished
> in physical theory. Unfortunately, its rejection did not result from
> physical observation or from logical deductions based on previously
> proven facts.
> It is based solely upon a consensus viewpoint.
THAT'S LIKE TAKING THE AVERAGE OF
HOW FAST ECONOMISTS [NONE OF WHICH
PREDICTED THE CRASH AND DEPRESSION]
THINK THE "RECOVERY" WILL HAPPEN!
AND PUBLISHING IT AS AN
"ECONOMIC INDICATOR"!
> In other words, that
> rejection is based upon an unproven (and probably unprovable opinion)
> rather than upon fact. The motivation for this opinion would seem to
> be an overwhelming urge on the part of physicists to consider space
> and time to be aspects of the same structure, spacetime, as viewed
> from different reference frames so as to make their mathematical
> treatment "elegant".
THAT'S PLENTY GOOD ENOUGH
FOR GOVERNMENT WORK!
> Nature doesn't care about what we would like to be true and
> there is no objectively valid reason to accept the viewpoint.
AGREED!
> It is claimed that the concept of spacetime rather than space and
> time as separate entities yields a simpler solution and, according
> to the principle of Ockham's Razor, must therefore be the correct one.
WHERE ARE OCKHAM'S
PEER-REVIEWED
JOURNAL ARTICLES!
I DON'T THINK
WE HAVE TO
LISTEN TO HIM!
HE DIDN'T EVEN DO
DOUBLE-BLIND STUDIES!
> It is true, mathematical solutions employing the spacetime
> concept are much simpler than solutions involving the Aether,
> but the solutions are not simpler with respect to reality.
BUT PHYSICS CARES
NOTHING ABOUT REALITY!
IT'S ALL ABOUT MATHEMATICS!
> As Dr. Einstein, who maintained a belief
> in "absolute time" for 25 years after the publication of Special
> Relativity exclaimed, the "concept of spacetime requires an infinite
> number of Aethers" as indeed it does. Once one realizes this, Ockham's
> Razor would lead any reasonable man to the Aether and not to the
> concept of "spacetime" as a single entity.
PHYSICS HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH REASONABLE MEN!
JUST MATHEMATICIANS!
> Unfortunately, Modern Physics seems to have been taken over by
> mathematical idiot savants who lack an appreciation for the
> implications of mechanism and strive to suppress the
> contributions of those who would dare to say
> "Hey, wait a minute"
"SEEMS TO"?
WHY CAN'T YOU CALL
A MAD WANKER
A MAD WANKER?
ARE YOU TOO SHY?
IT'S REALLY NOT HARD!
[ ... snip boilerplate ... ]
[ ... add rado boilerplate ... ]
READ RADO!
BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
=============================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
It�s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
by the greatest physicist of all time!
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
=============================================
NO BULLSHIT!
I GUARANTEE IT!
JUST HARD-NOSED
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!
It�s also the best
history of physics
ever written!
Even better than
Richard McKeon!
But Rado perfectly
illustrates both
McKeon�s analysis
AND PREDICTIONS!
HIS �LEAST PARTICLES�
ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON�S
FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!
THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
THAT�S A BIG
DOUBLE WOW-WOW!
CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
the faint of heart!
May be dangerous to
preconceived prejudices!
Steve�s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
My intro to Steve�s work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm
See �05* AETHER PHYSICS� in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the �PHYSICS� CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!
Also see the �AETHER PHYSICS� TOPIC
under the �2-FORUMS� in the blog PAGES.
That�s the reading list for now,
but �Aethro-dynamics� will be
released ANY DAY NOW!
O
--- )
\
NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p=1671