Light propagates as an aether displacement wave
mpc755
aether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#The_experiment
"The original Michelson–Morley experiment was useful for testing the
Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis only."
This is very different than the aether of relativity.
'ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place."
What Einstein is stating is superfluous is the ether of Lorentz, which
is what the Michelson-Morley experiment was trying to detect, not the
ether itself.
In order to understand Einstein's definition of ether you need to
understand Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether.
Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined
throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of
individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
"There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the
idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as
consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
tracked through time."
"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."
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable;...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. The idea of motion may not be
applied to it."
Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is
defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which
can be separately tracked through time. This is different than
Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.
The ether of general relativity is mobile.
"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."
The mobility of the ether is the state of displacement of the ether.
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
"
The state of the ether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the ether.
"... disregarding the causes which condition its state."
Einstein was unable to determine the causes which condition the state
of the ether.
Einstein was very close to understanding the state of the ether as
determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the
ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether
in his 'First Paper' which was a letter he wrote his uncle as a
teenager.
'Einstein's "First Paper"'
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."
This is more correctly understood in terms of relativity as the mass
of the aether displaced by these forces.
Light propagates as an aether displacement wave.
SolomonW
> Light propagates as an aether displacement wave.
There is no aether.
mpc755
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
Androcles
"Mike Cavedon" <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:daed3679-9808-4a38...@r18g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
================================================
There is no aether, and Einstein was a fucking imbecile like you.
--
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
mpc755
2011> wrote:
>
> There is no aether
Aether has mass.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the matter.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
SolomonW
> On Jul 27, 8:39�am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
The aether Einstein talking about in general theory of relativity is space,
it is not a ponderable media, devoid of all mechanical and kinematical
qualities.
mpc755
>
> The aether Einstein talking about in general theory of relativity is space,
> it is not a ponderable media, devoid of all mechanical and kinematical
> qualities.
Ponderable media defined as consisting of parts which can be tracked
through time.
PD
Einstein ruled out one with mass.
By the way, a frictionless superfluid has components that can be tracked
through time. That's what "flow" means, so when they talk about the flow
of a frictionless superfluid, they're talking about how it is tracked
through time. Note this is also what Einstein said the aether cannot be.
mpc755
> On 7/27/2011 7:40 AM, Mike Cavedon wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 8:39 am, SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 wrote:
> >>> Light propagates as an aether displacement wave.
>
> >> There is no aether.
>
> > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> > unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>
> Einstein ruled out one with mass.
Provide evidence.
> By the way, a frictionless superfluid has components that can be tracked
> through time. That's what "flow" means, so when they talk about the flow
> of a frictionless superfluid, they're talking about how it is tracked
> through time. Note this is also what Einstein said the aether cannot be.
That is why I always say, the aether is, or behaves similar to, a
frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
PD
> On Jul 27, 10:50 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2011 7:40 AM, Mike Cavedon wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 8:39 am, SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 wrote:
>>>>> Light propagates as an aether displacement wave.
>>
>>>> There is no aether.
>>
>>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
>>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>>
>> Einstein ruled out one with mass.
>
> Provide evidence.
Mass is trackable in time.
>
>> By the way, a frictionless superfluid has components that can be tracked
>> through time. That's what "flow" means, so when they talk about the flow
>> of a frictionless superfluid, they're talking about how it is tracked
>> through time. Note this is also what Einstein said the aether cannot be.
>
> That is why I always say, the aether is, or behaves similar to, a
> frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
Solids do not get displaced. Fluids do. Fluids flow and that is
trackable in time. Which is what Einstein denied.
mpc755
> On 7/27/2011 10:02 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 10:50 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/27/2011 7:40 AM, Mike Cavedon wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 27, 8:39 am, SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 wrote:
> >>>>> Light propagates as an aether displacement wave.
>
> >>>> There is no aether.
>
> >>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> >>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>
> >> Einstein ruled out one with mass.
>
> > Provide evidence.
>
> Mass is trackable in time.
>
Not if it is that which occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by
matter.
>
>
> >> By the way, a frictionless superfluid has components that can be tracked
> >> through time. That's what "flow" means, so when they talk about the flow
> >> of a frictionless superfluid, they're talking about how it is tracked
> >> through time. Note this is also what Einstein said the aether cannot be.
>
> > That is why I always say, the aether is, or behaves similar to, a
> > frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
>
> Solids do not get displaced. Fluids do. Fluids flow and that is
> trackable in time. Which is what Einstein denied.
You have a closed container full of helium-3 which is in the state
where it is a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
There is a ball in the tank. If all you knew of the helium-3 is that
its shape alters as the ball moves around in the tank then you would
have no reason to assume the helium-3 consists of individual particles
which can be tracked through time. However, it would still be a medium
in which the ball exists.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance we
can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters
in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking
the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental
impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were
PD
> On Jul 27, 11:14 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2011 10:02 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 10:50 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2011 7:40 AM, Mike Cavedon wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 27, 8:39 am, SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 wrote:
>>>>>>> Light propagates as an aether displacement wave.
>>
>>>>>> There is no aether.
>>
>>>>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
>>>>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>>
>>>> Einstein ruled out one with mass.
>>
>>> Provide evidence.
>>
>> Mass is trackable in time.
>>
>
> Not if it is that which occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by
> matter.
You say aether has mass. That which has mass, whether it is aether or it
is matter, is trackable in time, because anything with mass is trackable
in time.
>
>>
>>
>>>> By the way, a frictionless superfluid has components that can be tracked
>>>> through time. That's what "flow" means, so when they talk about the flow
>>>> of a frictionless superfluid, they're talking about how it is tracked
>>>> through time. Note this is also what Einstein said the aether cannot be.
>>
>>> That is why I always say, the aether is, or behaves similar to, a
>>> frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
>>
>> Solids do not get displaced. Fluids do. Fluids flow and that is
>> trackable in time. Which is what Einstein denied.
>
> You have a closed container full of helium-3 which is in the state
> where it is a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
> There is a ball in the tank. If all you knew of the helium-3 is that
> its shape alters as the ball moves around in the tank
If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
mpc755
>
> You say aether has mass. That which has mass, whether it is aether or it
> is matter, is trackable in time, because anything with mass is trackable
> in time.
>
Not if it is that which occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by
matter and all we are able to detect is the change in its shape as it
alters in time.
>
> If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
> fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
> in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>
You do understand water in the following analogy is a fluid, correct?
You do understand Einstein is using water as an analogy for the
aether, correct? You do understand Einstein defines aether as not
consisting of individual particles which can be separately tracked
through time, correct?
PD
> On Jul 27, 11:32 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You say aether has mass. That which has mass, whether it is aether or it
>> is matter, is trackable in time, because anything with mass is trackable
>> in time.
>>
>
> Not if it is that which occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by
> matter and all we are able to detect is the change in its shape as it
> alters in time.
You do if you know also that it has mass. Then it is trackable in time.
>
>>
>> If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
>> fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
>> in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>>
>
> You do understand water in the following analogy is a fluid, correct?
He's removing that knowledge in the latter half of the paragraph. You
don't understand that?
I know that balls don't move around in solids. They do in fluids. Fluid
flow is trackable in time.
Edward Green
> On 7/27/2011 10:28 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 11:14 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
> >> Solids do not get displaced. Fluids do. Fluids flow and that is
> >> trackable in time. Which is what Einstein denied.
>
> > You have a closed container full of helium-3 which is in the state
> > where it is a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
What does that mean, anyway? A superfluid with properties of a solid?
ITI that such a thing has some properties of a fluid, some of a solid.
Which?
As for fluids being trackable in time, that was rather the point of
the water wave/float analogy. If we have no floats, we can't track the
movement of the medium in time. We can track disturbances in the
medium (waves) nonetheless.
> > There is a ball in the tank. If all you knew of the helium-3 is that
> > its shape alters as the ball moves around in the tank
>
> If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
> fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
> in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
Balls don't move around in solids (very fast, at any rate), but
defects do.
micro...@hotmail.com
Part of light is aether that flows or floats through space which is
aether.
You know I don't want to bother you before I was impetuous
about expressing my science. So I don't know if I am welcome?
Androcles
"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message
news:150ywancpo98.xadj99dj7y2i$.dlg@40tude.net...
permeability. At least we can dispense with THAT nonsense.
PD
> |
> | The aether Einstein talking about in general theory of relativity is
> space,
> | it is not a ponderable media, devoid of all mechanical and kinematical
> | qualities.
> |
> That's good, someone once claimed empty space had permittivity and
> permeability. At least we can dispense with THAT nonsense.
Permittivity and permeability being which? Mechanical? Or kinematical
qualities?
mpc755
> On 7/27/2011 10:38 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 11:32 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You say aether has mass. That which has mass, whether it is aether or it
> >> is matter, is trackable in time, because anything with mass is trackable
> >> in time.
>
> > Not if it is that which occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by
> > matter and all we are able to detect is the change in its shape as it
> > alters in time.
>
> You do if you know also that it has mass. Then it is trackable in time.
>
No, you don't. If all you know is its shape is changing then you do
not now if it consists of individual particles which can be separately
tracked through time.
>
>
> >> If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
> >> fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
> >> in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>
> > You do understand water in the following analogy is a fluid, correct?
>
> He's removing that knowledge in the latter half of the paragraph. You
> don't understand that?
>
> I know that balls don't move around in solids. They do in fluids. Fluid
> flow is trackable in time.
>
Einstein states in the following analogy it can not be known if the
water consists of moveable particles or not.
mpc755
> On Jul 27, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7/27/2011 10:28 AM, mpc755 wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 11:14 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > >> Solids do not get displaced. Fluids do. Fluids flow and that is
> > >> trackable in time. Which is what Einstein denied.
>
> > > You have a closed container full of helium-3 which is in the state
> > > where it is a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
>
> What does that mean, anyway? A superfluid with properties of a solid?
> ITI that such a thing has some properties of a fluid, some of a solid.
> Which?
>
'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm
"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that
superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a
liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow
without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids
cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to
conduct sound waves."
'"Faraday's finding was the first indication that light and magnetism
were related," says William Halperin, professor of physics and
astronomy at Northwestern. "I wouldn't say that our discovery is of
that magnitude, but it is significant as the first observation of a
previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is
of the type you would expect to see in a solid."'
> As for fluids being trackable in time, that was rather the point of
> the water wave/float analogy. If we have no floats, we can't track the
> movement of the medium in time. We can track disturbances in the
> medium (waves) nonetheless.
>
Exactly.
> > > There is a ball in the tank. If all you knew of the helium-3 is that
> > > its shape alters as the ball moves around in the tank
>
> > If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
> > fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
> > in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>
> Balls don't move around in solids (very fast, at any rate), but
> defects do.
Balls move around in a frictionless superfluid with properties of a
solid helium-3.
Balls move around in the aether which is, or behaves similar to, a
PD
> On Jul 27, 12:06 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2011 10:38 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 11:32 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You say aether has mass. That which has mass, whether it is aether or it
>>>> is matter, is trackable in time, because anything with mass is trackable
>>>> in time.
>>
>>> Not if it is that which occupies three dimensional space unoccupied by
>>> matter and all we are able to detect is the change in its shape as it
>>> alters in time.
>>
>> You do if you know also that it has mass. Then it is trackable in time.
>>
>
> No, you don't.
You don't know that the aether has mass? You keep saying you know that
it does.
> If all you know is its shape is changing then you do
> not now if it consists of individual particles which can be separately
> tracked through time.
>
>>
>>
>>>> If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
>>>> fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
>>>> in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>>
>>> You do understand water in the following analogy is a fluid, correct?
>>
>> He's removing that knowledge in the latter half of the paragraph. You
>> don't understand that?
>>
>> I know that balls don't move around in solids. They do in fluids. Fluid
>> flow is trackable in time.
>>
>
> Einstein states in the following analogy it can not be known if the
> water consists of moveable particles or not.
Once you remove the knowledge of its fluidity and its ability to
displace around objects. You, on the other hand, say the aether gets
displaced -- that is, it moves (since that's what displacement MEANS) --
which is a behavior that is trackable in time. I have no problem with
the aether that Einstein was talking about -- today we call it
spacetime. However, YOUR aether, the one that exhibits displacement and
which you liken to a superfluid, that's the one that Einstein says can't
happen and I agree with him.
Benj
Oh shit! "Proof by assertion"!
That one gets me every time! You win!
PD
Then how about "There is no known observational evidence which is
accounted for by aether that is not accounted for without aether."
This then is not just an assertion. It is something that is supported by
documentation.
(Now, please please PLEASE tell me that of course there is no
documentation of the evidence, because it's all been suppressed and
packed away in Top Secret files in locked filing cabinets in underground
facilities guarded by UN troops.)
mpc755
>
> You don't know that the aether has mass? You keep saying you know that
> it does.
>
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
Matter is condensation of the aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
Matter and aether have mass.
Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
Matter and aether physically occupy three dimensional space.
>
> Once you remove the knowledge of its fluidity and its ability to
> displace around objects. You, on the other hand, say the aether gets
> displaced -- that is, it moves (since that's what displacement MEANS) --
> which is a behavior that is trackable in time. I have no problem with
> the aether that Einstein was talking about -- today we call it
> spacetime. However, YOUR aether, the one that exhibits displacement and
> which you liken to a superfluid, that's the one that Einstein says can't
> happen and I agree with him.
>
Einstein's definition of motion in terms of the aether is the aether
does not consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time.
Einstein removed from the aether of Lorentz its immobility. Meaning, the
aether of relativity is mobile.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."
The mobility of the aether of relativity is its displacement by matter.
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the aether.
mpc755
The following is evidence of the aether of relativity.
'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
http://www.space.com/7746-dark-halo-galaxy-squished-beach-ball.html
"Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant
spheres called haloes."
The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether.
"But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly
spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in a
surprising direction perpendicular to the galaxy's visible,
pancake-shaped spiral disk."
All of the aether displaced by the Milky Way matter exerts force toward
the matter. The force exerted toward the matter by the aether displaced
perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy's spiral disk offset. It is the
aether which is displaced outward relative to the plane of the spiral
disk which exerts force toward the center of the galaxy. This forces the
matter closer together which results in the displaced aether looking
like a squished beach ball.
Matter does not move with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract
"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and
strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected
offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre
(measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong
lensing)."
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under
water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and
the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the
water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the
lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the
center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the
lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the
submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the
same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually
displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water
connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the
submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water
the submarine continually displaces.
This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters
move through the aether.
Benj
>
> > On Jul 27, 11:32 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
> >> fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
> >> in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>
> > You do understand water in the following analogy is a fluid, correct?
>
> He's removing that knowledge in the latter half of the paragraph. You
> don't understand that?
>
> I know that balls don't move around in solids. They do in fluids. Fluid
> flow is trackable in time.
If one looks at the history of aether theory the question of whether
aether is a solid or a fluid has been argued forever. It seems to me
that the problem is that aether is BOTH. Balls move around in it and
yet at the same time it is clearly capable of transmitting polarized
transverse waves! What the 19th century scientists were not aware of
were properties BEYOND mere solid and liquid, namely the various super-
fluid properties that came to light much later. Aether, it seems to
me, MUST have properties like that! And that is where aether theory
has to go.
PD
> PD wrote:
>>
>> You don't know that the aether has mass? You keep saying you know that
>> it does.
>>
>
> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> Matter is condensation of the aether.
>
> Matter evaporates into aether.
Evaporation and condensation, by the way, are processes by which
individual particles in a medium transition between two different fluid
states, by virtue of their motion. (Which are of course trackable in time.)
>
> Matter and aether have mass.
Which is trackable in time.
>
> Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space.
>
> Matter and aether physically occupy three dimensional space.
>
>>
>> Once you remove the knowledge of its fluidity and its ability to
>> displace around objects. You, on the other hand, say the aether gets
>> displaced -- that is, it moves (since that's what displacement MEANS) --
>> which is a behavior that is trackable in time. I have no problem with
>> the aether that Einstein was talking about -- today we call it
>> spacetime. However, YOUR aether, the one that exhibits displacement and
>> which you liken to a superfluid, that's the one that Einstein says can't
>> happen and I agree with him.
>>
>
> Einstein's definition of motion in terms of the aether is the aether
> does not consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time.
>
> Einstein removed from the aether of Lorentz its immobility. Meaning, the
> aether of relativity is mobile.
I think you're in a corner here. You want Einstein to say at the same
time that aether is mobile and therefore moves, and that it nevertheless
cannot be tracked in time. That which moves can be tracked in time.
I can hardly wait until you get to the point where you are interpreting
Einstein to say that something is both round and square at the same
time, if you need him to say that.
PD
> PD wrote:
>> On 7/27/2011 3:40 PM, Benj wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 8:39 am, SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 wrote:
>>>>> Light propagates as an aether displacement wave.
>>>>
>>>> There is no aether.
>>>
>>> Oh shit! "Proof by assertion"!
>>> That one gets me every time! You win!
>>
>> Then how about "There is no known observational evidence which is
>> accounted for by aether that is not accounted for without aether."
>>
>> This then is not just an assertion. It is something that is supported by
>> documentation.
>>
>> (Now, please please PLEASE tell me that of course there is no
>> documentation of the evidence, because it's all been suppressed and
>> packed away in Top Secret files in locked filing cabinets in underground
>> facilities guarded by UN troops.)
>
> The following is evidence of the aether of relativity.
Read what I said. I said "There is no known observational evidence which
is accounted for by aether that is not accounted for without aether."
That is true even for the observation you quoted.
mpc755
Exactly. We have evidence of superfluids with properties of a solid. To
think the aether cannot have the same properties simply because we can
not know if it consists of particles or not is to be in denial.
'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm
Place a ball into a tank filled with helium-3 in the state where it is a
superfluid with properties of a solid. The ball displaces the helium-3.
Take the ball out of the helium-3. The helium-3 fills-in where the ball
had been. This is evidence the helium-3 is exerting force toward the ball.
Get to something as large as the Earth and the force exerted toward the
Earth by the aether displaced by the Earth is gravity.
If you roll a ball down a ramp of a tank filled with helium-3 in the
state where it is a superfluid with properties of a solid the rolling
ball is going to displace the helium-3 into the form of a wave. The ball
rolling down the ramp has an associated helium-3 displacement wave.
The particle in a double slit experiment has an associated aether
displacement wave.
mpc755
> On 7/27/2011 3:52 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't know that the aether has mass? You keep saying you know that
>>> it does.
>>>
>>
>> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>>
>> Matter is condensation of the aether.
>>
>> Matter evaporates into aether.
>
> Evaporation and condensation, by the way, are processes by which
> individual particles in a medium transition between two different fluid
> states, by virtue of their motion. (Which are of course trackable in time.)
>
Except for the aether where it can not be known if aether consists of
particles or not.
>>
>> Matter and aether have mass.
>
> Which is trackable in time.
>
Not if it exists where matter does not and all we can see is the change
in its shape as it varies in time.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance we
can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters
in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking
the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental
impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were
observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it
varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water
consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise
it as a medium."
>
> I think you're in a corner here. You want Einstein to say at the same
> time that aether is mobile and therefore moves, and that it nevertheless
> cannot be tracked in time. That which moves can be tracked in time.
>
> I can hardly wait until you get to the point where you are interpreting
> Einstein to say that something is both round and square at the same
> time, if you need him to say that.
>
Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the aether is the aether
does not consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time.
Einstein states the aether of relativity is mobile.
What I have figured out is the mobility of the aether of relativity is
its displacement by matter.
mpc755
>
> Read what I said. I said "There is no known observational evidence which
> is accounted for by aether that is not accounted for without aether."
>
> That is true even for the observation you quoted.
The following is evidence of the aether of relativity.
'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
PD
> PD wrote:
>> On 7/27/2011 3:52 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> PD wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You don't know that the aether has mass? You keep saying you know that
>>>> it does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>>>
>>> Matter is condensation of the aether.
>>>
>>> Matter evaporates into aether.
>>
>> Evaporation and condensation, by the way, are processes by which
>> individual particles in a medium transition between two different fluid
>> states, by virtue of their motion. (Which are of course trackable in
>> time.)
>>
>
> Except for the aether where it can not be known if aether consists of
> particles or not.
Then it can't be described as evaporating or condensing, because those
processes necessarily involve substances with particles. That's how
evaporation and condensation works.
>
>>>
>>> Matter and aether have mass.
>>
>> Which is trackable in time.
>>
>
> Not if it exists where matter does not and all we can see is the change
> in its shape as it varies in time.
Nope. All that's needed is the property of mass, which you claim it has.
That is sufficient to determine that it is trackable in time.
That which has mass and displaces has momentum. Momentum is measurable,
always and everywhere. Measuring momentum is tracking in time. That
which displaces and has mass is trackable in time.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
> http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
> entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
> surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
> course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance we
> can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters
> in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking
> the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental
> impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were
> observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it
> varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water
> consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise
> it as a medium."
>
>>
>> I think you're in a corner here. You want Einstein to say at the same
>> time that aether is mobile and therefore moves, and that it nevertheless
>> cannot be tracked in time. That which moves can be tracked in time.
>>
>> I can hardly wait until you get to the point where you are interpreting
>> Einstein to say that something is both round and square at the same
>> time, if you need him to say that.
>>
>
> Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the aether is the aether
> does not consist of individual particles which can be tracked through time.
>
> Einstein states the aether of relativity is mobile.
No he doesn't. He never said that. He said he had ruled out Lorentz's
immobile aether by removing it's ONLY mechanical quality, its
immobility. This does not leave a mobile aether as the remaining
conclusion. YOU said that, not Einstein. In so doing, you replace one
mechanical quality (immobility) with another (mobility), which is not
what Einstein claimed to do.
I'm sure that if a coroner were looking at a dead body and ruled out a
slow-acting poison as the cause of death, you would take the coroner to
mean that he was assigning a fast-acting poison as the cause of death.
What you claim to have figured out is how something can simultaneously
be moving and not trackable in time. This, of course, is like claiming
to have found the corners of a circle. You are free to continue
examining the lint in your navel, pondering the sound of one hand clapping.
PD
> PD wrote:
>>
>> Read what I said. I said "There is no known observational evidence which
>> is accounted for by aether that is not accounted for without aether."
>>
>> That is true even for the observation you quoted.
>
> The following is evidence of the aether of relativity.
>
I see you cannot read what I said and understand a complete sentence.
mpc755
>
> Then it can't be described as evaporating or condensing, because those
> processes necessarily involve substances with particles. That's how
> evaporation and condensation works.
>
Matter is condensations of the aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
Matter and aether have mass.
>
> Nope. All that's needed is the property of mass, which you claim it has.
> That is sufficient to determine that it is trackable in time.
> That which has mass and displaces has momentum. Momentum is measurable,
> always and everywhere. Measuring momentum is tracking in time. That
> which displaces and has mass is trackable in time.
>
>
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two
entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory
surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the
course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance we
can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters
in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking
the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental
impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were
observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it
varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water
consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise
it as a medium."
>>
>> Einstein states the aether of relativity is mobile.
>
> No he doesn't. He never said that. He said he had ruled out Lorentz's
> immobile aether by removing it's ONLY mechanical quality, its
> immobility. This does not leave a mobile aether as the remaining
> conclusion. YOU said that, not Einstein. In so doing, you replace one
> mechanical quality (immobility) with another (mobility), which is not
> what Einstein claimed to do.
>
If the aether is not immobile then it is mobile.
mpc755
>
> I see you cannot read what I said and understand a complete sentence.
>
The following is evidence of the aether of relativity.
'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
PD
No sir. Because then it is trackable in time. Especially if it
evaporates and condenses, and if it has mass and displaces.
You are not understanding what Einstein said.
PD
> PD wrote:
>>
>> I see you cannot read what I said and understand a complete sentence.
>>
>
> The following is evidence of the aether of relativity.
>
Unless you have observational evidence which is accounted for by aether
which is not accounted for without aether, you do not have evidence for
aether.
mpc755
>>
>> If the aether is not immobile then it is mobile.
>
> No sir. Because then it is trackable in time. Especially if it
> evaporates and condenses, and if it has mass and displaces.
>
> You are not understanding what Einstein said.
>
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:34ce266b-a1a7-4e0b...@l37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
===============================
Burden of proof resides with the aether claimant.
That one escapes you every time. Solomon DOES win.
Androcles
On Jul 27, 12:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2011 10:38 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 11:32 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
> >> fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
> >> in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>
> > You do understand water in the following analogy is a fluid, correct?
>
> He's removing that knowledge in the latter half of the paragraph. You
> don't understand that?
>
> I know that balls don't move around in solids. They do in fluids. Fluid
> flow is trackable in time.
If one looks at the history of aether theory the question of whether
aether is a solid or a fluid has been argued forever. It seems to me
that the problem is that aether is BOTH.
=============================================
Oh shit! "Proof by assertion"!
That one makes me laugh every time! You lose!
micro...@hotmail.com
> On Jul 27, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 11:14 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > >> Solids do not get displaced. Fluids do.
How does a sound compression wave move through a solid?
What is the energy of sound? Is it momentum in the instrument?
Mitch Raemsch
fluids flow and that is
> > >> trackable in time. Which is what Einstein denied.
>
> > > You have a closed container full of helium-3 which is in the state
> > > where it is a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
>
> What does that mean, anyway? A superfluid with properties of a solid?
> ITI that such a thing has some properties of a fluid, some of a solid.
> Which?
>
> As for fluids being trackable in time, that was rather the point of
> the water wave/float analogy. If we have no floats, we can't track the
> movement of the medium in time. We can track disturbances in the
> medium (waves) nonetheless.
>
> > > There is a ball in the tank. If all you knew of the helium-3 is that
> > > its shape alters as the ball moves around in the tank
>
> > If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
> > fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
> > in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>
mpc755
>
> Unless you have observational evidence which is accounted for by aether
> which is not accounted for without aether, you do not have evidence for
> aether.
>
The following is evidence of the aether of relativity.
Matter does not move with dark matter. Matter moves through the aether.
mpc755
> On Jul 27, 11:32 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/2011 10:28 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 11:14 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
>>>> trackable in time. Which is what Einstein denied.
>>
>>> You have a closed container full of helium-3 which is in the state
>>> where it is a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.
>
> What does that mean, anyway? A superfluid with properties of a solid?
> ITI that such a thing has some properties of a fluid, some of a solid.
> Which?
>
'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm
"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that
superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a
liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow
without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids
cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to
conduct sound waves."
'"Faraday's finding was the first indication that light and magnetism
were related," says William Halperin, professor of physics and
astronomy at Northwestern. "I wouldn't say that our discovery is of
that magnitude, but it is significant as the first observation of a
previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is
of the type you would expect to see in a solid."'
> As for fluids being trackable in time, that was rather the point of
> the water wave/float analogy. If we have no floats, we can't track the
> movement of the medium in time. We can track disturbances in the
> medium (waves) nonetheless.
>
>>> There is a ball in the tank. If all you knew of the helium-3 is that
>>> its shape alters as the ball moves around in the tank
>>
>> If the ball moves around in the tank, then I know that it's moving in a
>> fluid, not a solid. Balls don't move around in solids, they move around
>> in fluids. Fluids flow. Flow is trackable in time by definition.
>
> Balls don't move around in solids (very fast, at any rate), but
> defects do.
Place a ball into a tank filled with helium-3 in the state where it is a
superfluid with properties of a solid. The ball displaces the helium-3.
Take the ball out of the helium-3. The helium-3 fills-in where the ball
had been. This is evidence the helium-3 is exerting force toward the ball.
If you roll a ball down a ramp of a tank filled with helium-3 in the
state where it is a superfluid with properties of a solid the rolling
ball is going to displace the helium-3 into the form of a wave. The ball
rolling down the ramp has an associated helium-3 displacement wave.
The state of the helium-3 as determined by its connections with the
matter which exists in it is its state of displacement.
The Earth displaces enough aether that the force exerted toward the
Earth by the aether displaced by the Earth is gravity.
mpc755
> PD wrote:
>>
>> Unless you have observational evidence which is accounted for by aether
>> which is not accounted for without aether, you do not have evidence for
>> aether.
>>
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf
"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in
clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in
gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."
The field in gravitational theory which resembles CDM (cold dark matter)
fields is the aether.
The non-baryonic fluid is the aether.
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with
properties of a solid.
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
SolomonW
> On Jul 27, 9:32�am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>>
>> The aether Einstein talking about in general theory of relativity is space,
>> it is not a ponderable media, devoid of all mechanical and kinematical
>> qualities.
>
> Ponderable media defined as consisting of parts which can be tracked
> through time.
>
> "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."
meaninglessly nonsense
mpc755
Quotes from Einstein referred to a 'meaningless nonsense'. 'Nuff said.
PD
> PD wrote:
>>
>> Unless you have observational evidence which is accounted for by aether
>> which is not accounted for without aether, you do not have evidence for
>> aether.
>>
>
> The following is evidence of the aether of relativity.
None of the below satisfies the above. Therefore you do not have
evidence for aether. Sorry.
PD
>> PD wrote:
>>>
>>> Unless you have observational evidence which is accounted for by aether
>>> which is not accounted for without aether, you do not have evidence for
>>> aether.
Note that the below does not satisfy the above. You do not have evidence
mpc755
>
> Note that the below does not satisfy the above. You do not have evidence
> for aether.
>
The non-baryonic fluid in the following is the aether.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf
"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in
clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in
gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."
The field in gravitational theory which resembles CDM (cold dark matter)
fields is the aether.
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with
xxein
> The Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for a specific type of
> aether.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#The...
>
> "The original Michelson–Morley experiment was useful for testing the
> Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis only."
>
> This is very different than the aether of relativity.
>
> 'ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor
> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
> electromagnetic processes take place."
>
> What Einstein is stating is superfluous is the ether of Lorentz, which
> is what the Michelson-Morley experiment was trying to detect, not the
> ether itself.
>
> In order to understand Einstein's definition of ether you need to
> understand Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether.
>
> Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined
> throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of
> individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
> no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
> But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
>
> idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as
> consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
> tracked through time."
>
> "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."
>
> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> unthinkable;...But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
> the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
> applied to it."
>
> Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is
> defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which
> can be separately tracked through time. This is different than
> Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.
>
> The ether of general relativity is mobile.
>
> "It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
> which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
> taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
> immobility."
>
>
> "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
> "
>
> The state of the ether as determined by its connections with the
> matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state
> of displacement of the ether.
>
> "... disregarding the causes which condition its state."
>
> Einstein was unable to determine the causes which condition the state
> of the ether.
>
> Einstein was very close to understanding the state of the ether as
> determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the
> ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether
> in his 'First Paper' which was a letter he wrote his uncle as a
> teenager.
>
> 'Einstein's "First Paper"'http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
>
> "The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
> elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
> proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."
>
> This is more correctly understood in terms of relativity as the mass
> of the aether displaced by these forces.
>
> Light propagates as an aether displacement wave.
xxein: Anything can be proven right or wrong by using assumptions
that were never proven right or wrong.
mpc755
> On Jul 27, 5:57 am, mpc755<mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for a specific type of
>> aether.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#The...
>>
>> Lorentz�FitzGerald contraction hypothesis only."
>>
>> This is very different than the aether of relativity.
>>
>> 'ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>>
>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
The non-baryonic fluid in the following is the aether.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample
of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
[url]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf[/url]
"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in
clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in
gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under
water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and
the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the
water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the
lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the
center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the
lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the
submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the
same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually
displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water
connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the
submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water
the submarine continually displaces.
This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters
move through the aether.
The ripple create when galaxy clusters collide is a gravitational wave.
The ripple create when galaxy clusters collide is an aether displacement
wave.
The Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball is caused
by the force of the displaced aether exerted toward the Milky Way.
SolomonW
I think you need a course is reading comprehension. It is the sort of stuff
they teach in primary school.
mpc755
You are able to understand the quotes around the sentence you refer to
as 'meaninglessly nonsense' is a quote from Einstein, correct?
You are able to understand what Einstein was referring to as ponderable
media is consisting of parts which may be tracked through time, correct?
Is it the comma which is confusing you? Does it help if it is removed?
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.
Let's try defining ponderable media to see if that helps.
ponderable media: consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The aether of relativity does not consist of individual particles which
can be separately tracked through time. The aether of relativity is mobile.
The mobility of the aether of relativity is its displacement.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the aether.
What Einstein was unable to determine is the cause which conditions
the state of the aether. The cause which conditions the state of the
aether is its displacement by matter.
Benj
> On 7/27/2011 3:40 PM, Benj wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 8:39 am, SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:57:11 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 wrote:
>
>
> > Oh shit! "Proof by assertion"!
>
> accounted for by aether that is not accounted for without aether."
>
> This then is not just an assertion. It is something that is supported by
> documentation.
>
> (Now, please please PLEASE tell me that of course there is no
> documentation of the evidence, because it's all been suppressed and
> packed away in Top Secret files in locked filing cabinets in underground
> facilities guarded by UN troops.)
Why are you attempting to ridicule the whole idea of aether by
gratuitously bringing up imaginary "conspiracy theories" that only YOU
and not anyone else mentioned? Is this a political or scientific
discussion? If political, we can begin a nice discussion of how
classified information is kept in locked filing cabinets some of which
are even underground. I presume you've never held any clearances (or
do you have the high clearance of an official "debuker")
To return to science: As Einstein noted, the observational evidence
is that space has properties. Electrical properties! An assertion that
these properties exist with nothing to create them is as absurd as is
the current ideas that EM fields are simply "behavior" with nothing
present to actually have the "behavior". This is all tail-chasing
word games. If these properties are properties of "empty space" then
obviously space is not "empty". So then one must ask if it's even
POSSIBLE to create a "true" (empty) vacuum! So far there is no
commonly known evidence that a true vacuum is even possible. So space
or aether it's just your name-game. But aether theory DOES propose
that a "true" vacuum is possible. So there is the true test.
Benj
2011> wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> If one looks at the history of aether theory the question of whether
> aether is a solid or a fluid has been argued forever. It seems to me
> that the problem is that aether is BOTH.
> =============================================
> Oh shit! "Proof by assertion"!
> That one makes me laugh every time! You lose!
Proof? Andro, don't they still teach kids to read English in the Yoo
Kay? My opinion is simply my opinion. It is "proof" of nothing. You
are so hot to prove you are "smarter than Einstein" you'll grab at any
nearby straw. Your massive ignorance is great entertainment for the
newsgroup, though...
shuba
> But aether theory DOES propose that a "true"
> vacuum is possible.
Let's see a reference for that.
---Tim Shuba---
mpc755
There is at least one phenomenon which as of today can only be explained
by aether theory and that is the formation of the Milky Way disk and halo.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the
matter.
The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the
aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to this major direction of
motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the
matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the
matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of
the Milky Way. This forced the matter closer together which resulted in
the displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball.
Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created and the disk
and halo formed.
The state of the aether of relativity as determined by its connections
Androcles
==============================================
Binje, I copied and pasted your words from a different post of yours.
Reference
news:34ce266b-a1a7-4e0b...@l37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Did they ever teach kids to read English in the Yoo Ess, eh?
My comment is simply your comment. It is "proof" of nothing. You
are so hot to prove you are "smarter than Galileo" you'll grab at any
nearby straw. Your massive bigotry is great entertainment for the
newsgroup, though!
Here's how it is with aether:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes." -- Sir Isaac Newton,
Principia.
"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" - A. Einstein.
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" -- William of Ockham
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/General/occam.html
Since electro-magnetic radiation doesn't need any aether explain it, your
opinion is just another brain-fart.
Of course being fucking stupid you wouldn't understand the explanation,
but do tell us why an electron beam in a CRT or an ordinary compass
needle needs aether anyway.
You won't, of course. You are one more shaman glorying in your
pathetic mysticism.
mpc755
I must have missed your post where you explain how the Milky Way disk
and halo formed in a non-aether theory.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the
matter.
The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the
aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of
motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the
matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the
matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of
the Milky Way. This forced the matter closer together which resulted in
the displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball.
Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created and how the
PD
Why, yes, yes, it does. So you choose to say, "OK, then I'd rather not
call it 'space' then. Let's call it aether." Scientists will say that
calling it by a different name changes nothing. It might as well be just
called space and say that space has those properties.
> Electrical properties! An assertion that
> these properties exist with nothing to create them is as absurd as is
> the current ideas that EM fields are simply "behavior" with nothing
> present to actually have the "behavior".
It's not nothing if it has properties, right?
But perhaps you are saying that by 'nothing' you mean "no matter there'.
In which case, what you are really claiming is that ONLY matter can have
physical properties. But that's just a bald assertion without basis, and
physicists do not believe that.
> This is all tail-chasing
> word games. If these properties are properties of "empty space" then
> obviously space is not "empty".
Empty means devoid of matter, not devoid of properties. Space without
matter in it still has properties.