Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ignorante uneducated Aether Kooks!
11 views
Skip to first unread message
benj
May 8, 2013, 10:45:29 PM5/8/13
to
Here it is right from the horses mouths. We can let the horses asses,
like HVAC and jimp argue that they are smarter than Einstein.
1. Aether NOT in conflict with relativity
2. Idea that empty space is empty and has no properties is DEAD.
3. Therefore that which gives empty space properties can be termed aether
and GR without aether is “unthinkable”!
ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
An address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden
Albert Einstein
> The
> special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist
> of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in
> itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity.
> This spacetime variability
> of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or,
> perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space " in its
> physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to
> describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g[greek
> subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
> space is physically empty.
> 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.
OK name-callers, what can you call Einstein now? He was a KOOK! He was
INSANE. Others came up with his theories first and he just copied them.
He died thinking he was a plumber. Lets hear them!
like HVAC and jimp argue that they are smarter than Einstein.
1. Aether NOT in conflict with relativity
2. Idea that empty space is empty and has no properties is DEAD.
3. Therefore that which gives empty space properties can be termed aether
and GR without aether is “unthinkable”!
ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
An address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden
Albert Einstein
> The
> special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist
> of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in
> itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity.
> This spacetime variability
> of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or,
> perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space " in its
> physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to
> describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g[greek
> subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
> space is physically empty.
> 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.
OK name-callers, what can you call Einstein now? He was a KOOK! He was
INSANE. Others came up with his theories first and he just copied them.
He died thinking he was a plumber. Lets hear them!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 8, 2013, 11:35:03 PM5/8/13
to
it isn't empty;
you are conforming to hte mainstream (Einsteinmania) paradigm
that stems from Pascal's experimental discovery of (what,
he thought) was empty space, or vacuum, and what he called,
the plenum. of course,
there is no experimentally empty space, because
of "electromagnetically cooperative atomic thingies."
as for Eisntein's other mistakes,
you can check the book out.
> 3. Therefore that which gives empty space properties can be termed aether
> and GR without aether is “unthinkable”!
spacetime is Minkowski's useless sloganeering,
easily replaced by a flipbook (2+1 timennspacenn); however,
he was rather the father of a lot of N-dimensional stuff,
such as his generalization of Pick's theorem
(itself, 3rd-grade stuff).
> > This spacetime variability
> > of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or,
> > perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space " in its
> > physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to
> > describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g[greek
> > subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
> > space is physically empty.
> He was a KOOK!
you are conforming to hte mainstream (Einsteinmania) paradigm
that stems from Pascal's experimental discovery of (what,
he thought) was empty space, or vacuum, and what he called,
the plenum. of course,
there is no experimentally empty space, because
of "electromagnetically cooperative atomic thingies."
as for Eisntein's other mistakes,
you can check the book out.
> 3. Therefore that which gives empty space properties can be termed aether
> and GR without aether is “unthinkable”!
easily replaced by a flipbook (2+1 timennspacenn); however,
he was rather the father of a lot of N-dimensional stuff,
such as his generalization of Pick's theorem
(itself, 3rd-grade stuff).
> > This spacetime variability
> > of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or,
> > perhaps, the recognition of the fact that " empty space " in its
> > physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to
> > describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g[greek
> > subscript mu, nu]), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that
> > space is physically empty.
Yousuf Khan
May 8, 2013, 11:53:18 PM5/8/13
to
On 09/05/2013 8:45 AM, benj wrote:
> Here it is right from the horses mouths. We can let the horses asses,
> like HVAC and jimp argue that they are smarter than Einstein.
>
> 1. Aether NOT in conflict with relativity
> 2. Idea that empty space is empty and has no properties is DEAD.
> 3. Therefore that which gives empty space properties can be termed aether
> and GR without aether is “unthinkable”!
The thing that is dead is the luminoferous aether of olden days, whose
> Here it is right from the horses mouths. We can let the horses asses,
> like HVAC and jimp argue that they are smarter than Einstein.
>
> 1. Aether NOT in conflict with relativity
> 2. Idea that empty space is empty and has no properties is DEAD.
> 3. Therefore that which gives empty space properties can be termed aether
> and GR without aether is “unthinkable”!
properties did not describe the universe properly.
Whether space is a substance of "stuff", is another matter. It very well
might be, but the trouble for aether enthusiasts is that it solves no
problems that needs solving. You can completely ignore this "stuff", and
apply the existing field equations and everything works very well. It's
like trying to find the speed of a car by calculating the movements of
all moving parts in the car, rather than just measuring the car's speed
with radar gun or GPS or something. Why complicate life?
Yousuf Khan
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 9, 2013, 12:12:04 AM5/9/13
to
see?... dood knows, he's an accelerometer!
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 9, 2013, 1:00:40 AM5/9/13
to
I mean, I may be a follower of Pascal;
just not his ridiculous conclusion. after all,
he did uncover the limit of a stage of a suction pump,
at sea level (about 32 feet .-)
just not his ridiculous conclusion. after all,
he did uncover the limit of a stage of a suction pump,
at sea level (about 32 feet .-)
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 9, 2013, 12:44:11 AM5/9/13
to
educated person today believes there is an aether.
However benj is fixated on a world wide conspiracy to supress the "truth",
whatever that may be.
--
Jim Pennino
benj
May 9, 2013, 2:08:19 AM5/9/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 20:35:03 -0700, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> it isn't empty;
Glad you agree space is filled with aether. Oh right. Everybody knows
that now! Which raises the interesting question: Can a true vacuum be
created?
> spacetime is Minkowski's useless sloganeering,
> easily replaced by a flipbook (2+1 timennspacenn); however, he was
> rather the father of a lot of N-dimensional stuff, such as his
> generalization of Pick's theorem (itself, 3rd-grade stuff).
I certainly agree with sloganeering, but n-dimensional "stuff" is not to
be ignored. A number of important physics laws actually involve
extradimensionality that everyone has glossed over.
> it isn't empty;
Glad you agree space is filled with aether. Oh right. Everybody knows
that now! Which raises the interesting question: Can a true vacuum be
created?
> spacetime is Minkowski's useless sloganeering,
> easily replaced by a flipbook (2+1 timennspacenn); however, he was
> rather the father of a lot of N-dimensional stuff, such as his
> generalization of Pick's theorem (itself, 3rd-grade stuff).
be ignored. A number of important physics laws actually involve
extradimensionality that everyone has glossed over.
benj
May 9, 2013, 2:09:36 AM5/9/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:53:18 +0600, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 8:45 AM, benj wrote:
>> Here it is right from the horses mouths. We can let the horses asses,
>> like HVAC and jimp argue that they are smarter than Einstein.
> On 09/05/2013 8:45 AM, benj wrote:
>> Here it is right from the horses mouths. We can let the horses asses,
>> like HVAC and jimp argue that they are smarter than Einstein.
> Why complicate life?
>
> Yousuf Khan
You said it! When you already know everything, no reason to add any new
>
> Yousuf Khan
stuff!
benj
May 9, 2013, 2:12:57 AM5/9/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 04:44:11 +0000, jimp wrote:
> Einstein eventually realized some of his early stuff was wrong and no
> educated person today believes there is an aether.
>
> However benj is fixated on a world wide conspiracy to supress the
> "truth",
> whatever that may be.
Jimp is obviously still claiming he is WAY smarter than Einstein, even
> Einstein eventually realized some of his early stuff was wrong and no
> educated person today believes there is an aether.
>
> However benj is fixated on a world wide conspiracy to supress the
> "truth",
> whatever that may be.
though he hasn't won the prize yet. We all knew he would. He thinks that
by ridiculing me it makes him look even smarter!
Next we'll hear from HVAC saying he's smarter then Einstein too. Didn't I
just predict this?
FrediFizzx
May 9, 2013, 3:07:27 AM5/9/13
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:r5mr5a-...@mail.specsol.com...
Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate
"The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Lightness-Being-Unification-Forces/dp/0465003214
The Standard Model of particle physics does in fact require ether. Wilczek
is no dummy even if he does believe in SUSY. LOL!
news:r5mr5a-...@mail.specsol.com...
"The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces"
http://www.amazon.com/The-Lightness-Being-Unification-Forces/dp/0465003214
The Standard Model of particle physics does in fact require ether. Wilczek
is no dummy even if he does believe in SUSY. LOL!
Szczepan Bialek
May 9, 2013, 3:40:28 AM5/9/13
to
"Yousuf Khan" <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:518b...@news.bnb-lp.com...
> On 09/05/2013 8:45 AM, benj wrote:
>> Here it is right from the horses mouths. We can let the horses asses,
>> like HVAC and jimp argue that they are smarter than Einstein.
>>
>> 1. Aether NOT in conflict with relativity
>> 2. Idea that empty space is empty and has no properties is DEAD.
>> 3. Therefore that which gives empty space properties can be termed aether
>> and GR without aether is "unthinkable"!
>
> The thing that is dead is the luminoferous aether of olden days, whose
> properties did not describe the universe properly.
The aether of olden days was like the dielectric.
>> Here it is right from the horses mouths. We can let the horses asses,
>> like HVAC and jimp argue that they are smarter than Einstein.
>>
>> 1. Aether NOT in conflict with relativity
>> 2. Idea that empty space is empty and has no properties is DEAD.
>> 3. Therefore that which gives empty space properties can be termed aether
>> and GR without aether is "unthinkable"!
>
> The thing that is dead is the luminoferous aether of olden days, whose
> properties did not describe the universe properly.
But in 1846 Faraday wrote that the "aether" is like plasma.
"I suppose we may compare together the matter of the aether and ordinary
matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire through which the
electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in their essential
constitution; i.e. either as both composed of little nuclei, considered in
the abstract as matter, and of force or power associated with these nuclei".
From: http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
>
> Whether space is a substance of "stuff", is another matter. It very well
> might be, but the trouble for aether enthusiasts is that it solves no
> problems that needs solving.
But now are the two teams of aether enthusiasts.
> Whether space is a substance of "stuff", is another matter. It very well
> might be, but the trouble for aether enthusiasts is that it solves no
> problems that needs solving.
The aether like a dielectric and the aether like the plasma.
Dirac wrote the same as Faraday: "The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of
the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy".
What do you prefer: Faraday and Dirac or Heaviside (inventor of EM)?
> You can completely ignore this "stuff", and apply the existing field
> equations and everything works very well.
Is possible that such equations describe the reality very well?
>It's like trying to find the speed of a car by calculating the movements of
>all moving parts in the car, rather than just measuring the car's speed
>with radar gun or GPS or something. Why complicate life?
But such knowledge is not necessary for policement.
S*
Yousuf Khan
May 9, 2013, 9:31:48 AM5/9/13
to
explain anything any better than what the existing equations already
describe, then it's a solution in search of a problem. The aether can be
conveniently ignored and never considered, as it has always been since
Einstein introduced Relativity. Underlying Relativity might be some form
of aether, but much like the movement of the pistons in a car engine
don't need to be considered when simply measuring the car's road speed,
you similarly don't need to consider the underlying aether.
Yousuf Khan
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 9, 2013, 12:31:35 PM5/9/13
to
you misconstrue; Pick's theorem is, like, the start
of a whole bunch of numbertheory, and Minkowski went much further.
it is just so sad, that he is only known for a fallacy of composition,
a mere relabelling of phase space. he seemed to have gone nuts
over it, possibly drugs, then he died at 43.
Pascal was just wrong about an absolute vacuum;
neither classically nor QMly (uncertainty) can suc be attained,
and there is your "zero-point energy" flapdoodlers.
why is it so hard to see that "atoms in free space
act electromagnaetically to propogate waves of light?
> Can a true vacuum be created?
of a whole bunch of numbertheory, and Minkowski went much further.
it is just so sad, that he is only known for a fallacy of composition,
a mere relabelling of phase space. he seemed to have gone nuts
over it, possibly drugs, then he died at 43.
Pascal was just wrong about an absolute vacuum;
neither classically nor QMly (uncertainty) can suc be attained,
and there is your "zero-point energy" flapdoodlers.
why is it so hard to see that "atoms in free space
act electromagnaetically to propogate waves of light?
> Can a true vacuum be created?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
May 9, 2013, 2:29:06 PM5/9/13
to
In sci.physics.electromag benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 04:44:11 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> Einstein eventually realized some of his early stuff was wrong and no
>> educated person today believes there is an aether.
>>
>> However benj is fixated on a world wide conspiracy to supress the
>> "truth",
>> whatever that may be.
>
> Jimp is obviously still claiming he is WAY smarter than Einstein, even
> though he hasn't won the prize yet. We all knew he would. He thinks that
> by ridiculing me it makes him look even smarter!
How the hell do you come to such a twisted conclusion from the simple
>
>> Einstein eventually realized some of his early stuff was wrong and no
>> educated person today believes there is an aether.
>>
>> However benj is fixated on a world wide conspiracy to supress the
>> "truth",
>> whatever that may be.
>
> Jimp is obviously still claiming he is WAY smarter than Einstein, even
> though he hasn't won the prize yet. We all knew he would. He thinks that
> by ridiculing me it makes him look even smarter!
statement the Einstein eventually realized some of his early stuff was wrong?
Note that I said Einstein realized some of his early stuff was wrong, not
that I realized some of his early stuff was wrong.
--
Jim Pennino
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 9, 2013, 4:13:30 PM5/9/13
to
because, perhaps, the atoms of "free space" are allowed
to do their electromagnetic thing, or job.
why is it that so many physicists, mostly Einsteinmaniacs,
believe in a perfect vacuum?
to do their electromagnetic thing, or job.
why is it that so many physicists, mostly Einsteinmaniacs,
believe in a perfect vacuum?
Salmon Egg
May 9, 2013, 4:25:38 PM5/9/13
to
In article
<6c6e0ef0-7119-4abb...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
A perfect vacuum, whatever it is, is good enough for many purposes. We
still use geometry with perfect lines and points even though the do not
exist. I works for me.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
<6c6e0ef0-7119-4abb...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
still use geometry with perfect lines and points even though the do not
exist. I works for me.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 9, 2013, 10:01:07 PM5/9/13
to
and probably, no-one else, as it should be.
anyway, this is what is known as "reifying the God-am math,"
such as with the Copenhagenschoolers' wholesale marketing
of Schroedinger's joke (cat), and
the Nobel Cmte.'s awarding of a prize for a "new" interpretation
of Fignewton's fake theory of "rock's o massless light."
all of the properties of light are wavey;
every single one of them.
> I works for me.
anyway, this is what is known as "reifying the God-am math,"
such as with the Copenhagenschoolers' wholesale marketing
of Schroedinger's joke (cat), and
the Nobel Cmte.'s awarding of a prize for a "new" interpretation
of Fignewton's fake theory of "rock's o massless light."
all of the properties of light are wavey;
every single one of them.
> I works for me.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 9, 2013, 10:04:20 PM5/9/13
to
good; we can't decide whether you're an aetherist, or
an atomist (that was the actual reason,
that Galileo was "persecuted" with a house arrest
in his villa).
an atomist (that was the actual reason,
that Galileo was "persecuted" with a house arrest
in his villa).
benj
May 10, 2013, 4:55:35 PM5/10/13
to
Was there a point in all that?
benj
May 10, 2013, 5:15:38 PM5/10/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 19:31:48 +0600, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> As I said previously and you conveniently edited out, if aether doesn't
> explain anything any better than what the existing equations already
> describe, then it's a solution in search of a problem. The aether can be
> conveniently ignored and never considered, as it has always been since
> Einstein introduced Relativity. Underlying Relativity might be some form
> of aether, but much like the movement of the pistons in a car engine
> don't need to be considered when simply measuring the car's road speed,
> you similarly don't need to consider the underlying aether.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Sure you don't need to know how a car engine works to DRIVE a car, but if
> As I said previously and you conveniently edited out, if aether doesn't
> explain anything any better than what the existing equations already
> describe, then it's a solution in search of a problem. The aether can be
> conveniently ignored and never considered, as it has always been since
> Einstein introduced Relativity. Underlying Relativity might be some form
> of aether, but much like the movement of the pistons in a car engine
> don't need to be considered when simply measuring the car's road speed,
> you similarly don't need to consider the underlying aether.
>
> Yousuf Khan
you want to build a car it's a different story. So your argument is that
it's better to stay stupid and never understand anything because it's
simpler and easier. I guess it works for you. Personally I like to have
an understanding or at least a model of how things work.
benj
May 10, 2013, 5:17:13 PM5/10/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 13:25:38 -0700, Salmon Egg wrote:
> In article
> <6c6e0ef0-7119-4abb...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> because, perhaps, the atoms of "free space" are allowed to do their
>> electromagnetic thing, or job.
>>
>> why is it that so many physicists, mostly Einsteinmaniacs,
>> believe in a perfect vacuum?
>>
>> > you similarly don't need to consider the underlying aether.
>
> A perfect vacuum, whatever it is, is good enough for many purposes. We
> still use geometry with perfect lines and points even though the do not
> exist. I works for me.
Nice argument Egg... for why one should use aether for many purposes even
> In article
> <6c6e0ef0-7119-4abb...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> because, perhaps, the atoms of "free space" are allowed to do their
>> electromagnetic thing, or job.
>>
>> why is it that so many physicists, mostly Einsteinmaniacs,
>> believe in a perfect vacuum?
>>
>> > you similarly don't need to consider the underlying aether.
>
> A perfect vacuum, whatever it is, is good enough for many purposes. We
> still use geometry with perfect lines and points even though the do not
> exist. I works for me.
though it doesn't exist (except of course it does).
1treePetrifiedForestLane
May 10, 2013, 5:21:41 PM5/10/13
to
I serously doubt that the inventor was an aetherialist.
the "point" is that a)
there is no absolute vacuum through which waves are
unable to propogate, b)
no "theory" of corpuscles, other than "ray-tracing, c)
read on Huyghens (16th cce .-)
the "point" is that a)
there is no absolute vacuum through which waves are
unable to propogate, b)
no "theory" of corpuscles, other than "ray-tracing, c)
read on Huyghens (16th cce .-)
0 new messages