The Aether, Michelson and Einstein

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 9:38:58 AM1/9/16

to

The Aether, Michelson and Einstein

The aether has been described by various scientists in different forms and with differing attributes (Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes and others). The aether was disowned only by Michelson after his failure to experimentally prove it because he applied an incorrect logic in his interferometer experiment and did not want to admit his error.

Michelson incorrectly assumed the light path on the perpendicular arm (AB) of the interferometer traversed an isosceles triangle but the light path is a right angle triangle. In the correct logic of the experiment a light ray leaves the beam splitter A at a right angle, impacts at the mirror B and leaves it at a small acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. In the meantime the split ray moves from A to D and back to C where it meets the ray coming from B without interference because distance ABC equals distance ADC.
The Proof:
2D(1+vv/cc)-(D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)) = 0

B
^\
^ \ The perpendicular and parallel arm
^ \ light paths of the MMX interferometer
^ \
^ \
^ \
^ \
^ \
^ \
^ \
A>---------\-------------------------------->D
C<------------------------------<D

ADC = 2D(1+vv/cc) = 22.00000022m (according to Michelson)
ABC = D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)
= 11m + 11.00000022m = 22.00000022m (according to Riedt) AB = D = 11m
AC = (2D(1+vv/cc)) = 0.0000000733333340666667sec
AC = ((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v = 0.002200000022m
BC = sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2) = 11.00000022m

D=11m, c=300000000m/sec, c=30000m/sec

Albert Einstein is thought to have himself also distanced from the aether. However in an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden he lectured on the topic 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity'. The lecture was published by Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922. At the end of the lecture he said:

"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".

Peter Riedt

reber g=emc^2

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 12:57:02 PM1/9/16

to

Aether known to have energy brings more light to the tunnel end.TreBert

omni...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 2:55:32 PM1/9/16

to

The aether has momentum:

NV/tau = zA/t = the momentum of free-space conservation

NV/tau = ((1/2) a t^2) * (4 pi R^2) / t

N = number of baryons in planet

V = proton volume = 3.591364 * 10^-45 cubic meters

tau = 5.131534 ns

z = height fallen = 1/2 a t^2

A = planet area = 4 pi R^2

R = planet radius or any larger radius of a sphere centered on a planet

t = time for object falling

The momentum of free-space is in the ether. It is a "derivative aether", not a position ether.

Jeff-Relf.Me

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 3:36:07 PM1/9/16

to

 
Peter Riedt,

Einstein's "Aether" (SpaceTime) is a 4-D, static timeScape;
the future is just as fixed as the past.

   What we want, all our desires,
   has been programmed into us (by nature).
   We're robots.  "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 7:59:42 PM1/9/16

to

I posted this thread a week ago in sci.physics.research. It was outright rejected by a moderator in Frankfurt with the justification: "It is inappropriate because it is too speculative".

Why did the moderator ignore Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes, others and Einstein? Were they speculative too?

Helmut Wabnig

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 3:25:26 AM1/10/16

to

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 06:38:51 -0800 (PST), Peter Riedt
<rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The aether has been described by various scientists in different forms and with differing attributes

WRONG!

The aether does not exist, its existence is a mere assumption.
How do you describe something that does not exist.
All you can do is develop phantasies and phantasmorgasms.

The aether is for physics what the Holy Spirit is
for the Christian religious preponderous Holy Bullshit.
Nobody knows what it is, what it is good for
and why it would be needed.

Read what religious opium eaters pull out of their asses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Light has wave properties and particle properties.
How light moves through space and matter is unknown
and any speculation about a "medium" must be disregarded.
There is no "medium", period.

There is no "medium" in the conventional sense,
like the infamous false analogy to duck pond physics:
http://places.wishful-thinking.org.uk/DBY/Foolow/DuckPond.html
An emitator (duck) causes wave ripples in a medium (water).

Instead of admitting the lack of knowledge,
(AKA known as ignorance),
scientists fill the empty brain space with brain farts.

w.

Poutnik

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 3:57:20 AM1/10/16

to

Dne 10/01/2016 v 01:59 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> Why did the moderator ignore Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes, others and Einstein? Were they speculative too?
>

Why do you ignore the reasons
why ideas of various kinds of aether had been refuted or abandoned ?

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Sylvia Else

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 4:27:35 AM1/10/16

to

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

And vice versa.

Sylvia.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 7:21:10 PM1/10/16

to

Does it mean you agree with me?

Sylvia Else

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 7:35:33 PM1/10/16

to

No. From your quotes it appears Einstein was using the word with a
different meaning.

Sylvia.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 12:23:17 AM1/11/16

to

He acknowledged the aether in general and as the transmitter of light. Every scientist had a different view of the aether but no one rejected it.

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 12:24:43 AM1/11/16

to

On 09/01/2016 7:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> I posted this thread a week ago in sci.physics.research. It was outright rejected by a moderator in Frankfurt with the justification: "It is inappropriate because it is too speculative".
>
> Why did the moderator ignore Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes, others and Einstein? Were they speculative too?

Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.

Yousuf Khan

Poutnik

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:35:41 AM1/11/16

to

Dne 11/01/2016 v 06:23 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

>>
>> No. From your quotes it appears Einstein was using the word with a
>> different meaning.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> He acknowledged the aether in general and as the transmitter of light. Every scientist had a different view of the aether but no one rejected it.

Rather rejected by many experiments.

What Einstein called an aether, is now called just space-time
and is different to luminoferous aether, that was refuted.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:13:59 AM1/11/16

to

Why am I a crank? Am I politically incorrect? Not allowed to make a contribution? Subject to censorship? No, yes, yes,yes. Polite censorship is worse than direct confrontation; it is used to cover denial of my rights.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:25:30 AM1/11/16

to

Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.

Poutnik

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:39:53 AM1/11/16

to

Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:

>
> Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
>

Experiments spoke againts aether, not for it.

Poutnik

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:45:32 AM1/11/16

to

Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:

>>
>> What Einstein called an aether, is now called just space-time
>> and is different to luminoferous aether, that was refuted.

>

> Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
>

And why LET was abandoned.... ?

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 3:52:43 AM1/11/16

to

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:45:32 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >>
> >> What Einstein called an aether, is now called just space-time
> >> and is different to luminoferous aether, that was refuted.
>
> >
> > Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
> >
> And why LET was abandoned.... ?
>

For good reasons. Let was wrong as was MMX. But the aether has nothing to do with LET or MMX. Neither can prove or disprove the aether.

Poutnik

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 4:32:13 AM1/11/16

to

On 01/11/2016 08:25 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/01/2016 v 06:23 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>>
>>>> No. From your quotes it appears Einstein was using the word with a
>>>> different meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> He acknowledged the aether in general and as the transmitter of light. Every scientist had a different view of the aether but no one rejected it.
>>
>> Rather rejected by many experiments.
>>
>> What Einstein called an aether, is now called just space-time
>> and is different to luminoferous aether, that was refuted.
>>
>

> Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
>

If you studied history of science properly,
you would save yourself from false conclusions and blind ways.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 11:36:24 AM1/11/16

to

On 1/9/2016 6:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> I posted this thread a week ago in sci.physics.research. It was outright rejected by a
> moderator in Frankfurt with the justification: "It is inappropriate because it is too speculative".
>
> Why did the moderator ignore Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau,
> Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes, others
> and Einstein? Were they speculative too?

None of the people you mentioned ever posted to sci.physics.research.
Furthermore, it was not unusual for papers by those people to be
rejected from one or more publications, and they would have to find
another to try to get it published.

So what exactly are you complaining about?

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Mahipal

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 11:51:56 AM1/11/16

to

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:36:24 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/9/2016 6:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > I posted this thread a week ago in sci.physics.research. It was
> > outright rejected by a moderator in Frankfurt with the
> > justification: "It is inappropriate because it is too
> > speculative".
>
> > Why did the moderator ignore Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens,
> > Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald,
> > Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes, others
> > and Einstein? Were they speculative too?
>
> None of the people you mentioned ever posted to sci.physics.research.
> Furthermore, it was not unusual for papers by those people to be
> rejected from one or more publications, and they would have to find
> another to try to get it published.

Now, circa 2016, publishing is as simple as Twitter. Deal with it It IT.

> So what exactly are you complaining about?

Your rude condescending idiotic ways, Odd you never made anything.

> --
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: David Bowie Dies. Who is next? Queue?”
Starman, Ch ch Changes, Grounds Control To Major Tom, ...
Queue is a funny word, because it is pronounced Q. Easy rhyme that.
Give me the Queue boys and free my soul... lost I in your rock and roll.
I bet they all end up dead, Do Be Grey. Why the fuck is that, Q==Queue->Who?!

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:03:55 PM1/11/16

to

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:39:53 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
> >
> > Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
> >
> Experiments spoke againts aether, not for it.
>

Which experiments disproved the aether? None. All claims are the same as that of a man who went into the desert looking for gold. When he didn't find any he said: "Gold doesn't exist".

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:18:07 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/16 12:03 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Which experiments disproved the aether? None.

The more important question: Is there a need for an aether? And
the answer is that our fruitful theories in physics have no need
for an aether.

--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:19:38 PM1/11/16

to

What rights do you think you have, Peter?
The right to be paid attention to?
The right to have your questions answered?
The right to have your contributions acknowledged as positive contributions?

Cranks are distinguished by how they do their work, not by how they are
treated. How they are treated is a consequence of how they do their work.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:23:11 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/2016 1:30 AM, benj wrote:
> The fact remains. If light is even PARTIALLY a wave, by DEFINITION a
> wave needs a medium in which to propagate.

What definition are you referring to that requires a medium for the wave
to exist?

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:23:32 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/9/16 8:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> "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".

Relativity has matured. Is there a need for an aether? No! Our
fruitful theories in physics have no need for an aether, including
General Relativity.

HVAC

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:26:44 PM1/11/16

to

Which experiments disproved the aether? None. All claims are the same as that of a man who went into the desert looking for gold. When he didn't find any he said: "Gold doesn't exist".

------------

Tell you what. You can go ahead and believe in ether. Everyone can.

Since ether, much like god, can be treated in any calculations or experiments EXACTLY as if they do not exist at all, you can factor them in all you like.

Happy now?

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:34:34 PM1/11/16

to

Gold and the aether do exist. However the aether is more elusive than gold. Furthermore the aether is required for the universe to function.

HVAC

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 1:43:06 PM1/11/16

to

Gold and the aether do exist. However the aether is more elusive than gold. Furthermore the aether is required for the universe to function

----------

Obviously not.

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:02:19 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/16 12:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Gold and the aether do exist. However the aether is more elusive than gold. Furthermore the aether is required for the universe to function.

An important question: Is there a need for an aether? No! And
the answer is that our fruitful theories in physics have no need
for an aether.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:21:49 PM1/11/16

to

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:02:19 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/11/16 12:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > Gold and the aether do exist. However the aether is more elusive than gold. Furthermore the aether is required for the universe to function.
>
>
> An important question: Is there a need for an aether? No! And
> the answer is that our fruitful theories in physics have no need
> for an aether.
>

No need for the aether because it doesn't fit fanciful mainstream theories.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:24:27 PM1/11/16

to

By your mindset only.

HVAC

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:41:52 PM1/11/16

to

Think. Name any calculation, observation or experiment that factors in ether.....

I'll wait right here

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:46:09 PM1/11/16

to

Nor is it needed.

Poutnik

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 2:51:29 PM1/11/16

to

Dne 11/01/2016 v 19:03 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:39:53 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
>>>
>> Experiments spoke againts aether, not for it.
>>
> Which experiments disproved the aether? None.

Your knowledge of history of science is close to ignorance.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 3:21:25 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/2016 2:42 AM, benj wrote:
> Point is experiments showed that the original idea of an earth plowing
> through a fixed aether as it hurtles through space is not correct.
> However, the idea that waves can be propagated in "nothing at all" is
> simply insane.

But nobody says waves propagate in nothing at all.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 3:50:01 PM1/11/16

to

Peter, the scientific thing to do is to ask, what measurable effect
would be the indicator of the existence of an ether?

Then you go look for that effect. If an aether theory predicts that you
will see so-and-so happening under this-or-that circumstance, and then
you go look for that happening under those circumstances, and you don't
see it, then that's considered evidence against your supposition of the
aether.

So go back to my original question above, and try to answer it.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 3:50:45 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/2016 12:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Gold and the aether do exist. However the aether is more elusive than gold. Furthermore the
> aether is required for the universe to function.

Why do you think it's required?

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 3:53:00 PM1/11/16

to

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> On 09/01/2016 7:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > I posted this thread a week ago in sci.physics.research. It was outright rejected by a moderator in Frankfurt with the justification: "It is inappropriate because it is too speculative".
> >
> > Why did the moderator ignore Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes, others and Einstein? Were they speculative too?
>

> Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 4:35:43 PM1/11/16

to

It's possible. Einstein did have papers rejected on occasion. Why would
you think you'd be more privileged?

But on the other hand, just because Einstein was also rejected on
occasion doesn't make your work comparable to his work.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 5:19:05 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/2016 4:15 PM, benj wrote:

> On 01/11/2016 03:49 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 12:03 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:39:53 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>>> Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in
>>>>> defence of your space-time.
>>>>>
>>>> Experiments spoke againts aether, not for it.
>>>>
>>> Which experiments disproved the aether? None. All claims are the same
>>> as that of a man who went
>>> into the desert looking for gold. When he didn't find any he said:
>>> "Gold doesn't exist".
>>>
>>
>> Peter, the scientific thing to do is to ask, what measurable effect
>> would be the indicator of the existence of an ether?
>

> That's easy Boinker. The propagation of waves.

According to what definition of waves? Where is the definition of wave
behavior that says that seeing waves implies the presence of a medium?

>
>> Then you go look for that effect. If an aether theory predicts that you
>> will see so-and-so happening under this-or-that circumstance, and then
>> you go look for that happening under those circumstances, and you don't
>> see it, then that's considered evidence against your supposition of the
>> aether.
>

> Is there wave propagation in "empty" space? Come on Boinker even you can
> answer that one... oh what? I have to wait for you to answer your
> cellphone before you can answer? OK.

Empty of what? Empty of matter? Yes, there is wave propagation in space
empty of matter.

>
>> So go back to my original question above, and try to answer it.
>

> Ah, So since there is no wave propagation of any kind in empty space
> that means that there is no aether in space! Seems like an iron-clad
> proof to me. Odd, you da science man!

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 6:40:04 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/2016 4:17 PM, benj wrote:

> On 01/11/2016 03:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 12:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> Gold and the aether do exist. However the aether is more elusive than
>>> gold. Furthermore the
>>> aether is required for the universe to function.
>>
>> Why do you think it's required?
>

> <raps on Bonkers head with knuckles>
>
> BECAUSE waves need a MEDIUM to propagate by DEFINITION!

Which definition are you referring to?
I don't mean one out of your head that you think makes common sense.
I mean the actual documented definition.

It's possible -- just possible -- that the definition YOU have in mind
for waves isn't right at all.

>
> God you are dense.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 6:56:13 PM1/11/16

to

There is no reason to feel threatened by original thoughts. Thinking outside the box has never hurt anybody. What is it you think you are saving other people from? Jealous?

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 7:56:06 PM1/11/16

to

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:50:45 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/11/2016 12:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > Gold and the aether do exist. However the aether is more elusive than gold. Furthermore the
> > aether is required for the universe to function.
>
> Why do you think it's required?
>

Einstein in Leyden, 1920: "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".

According to Einstein the aether is required for light, space and time, according to me for the functioning of the universe. You can ignore me but why would you ignore Einstein?

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 8:11:08 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/16 6:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Einstein in Leyden, 1920: "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".

Relativity has matured. Is there a need for an aether? No! Our
fruitful theories in physics have no need for an aether, including
General Relativity.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 8:28:10 PM1/11/16

to

I don't know why you would think my response is indicative of feeling
threatened? Why on earth would I feel threatened?

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 8:31:32 PM1/11/16

to

It's not a matter of ignoring. In fact, I asked you a direct question.
You say the aether is required for the functioning of the universe. I
asked you why you think it is required for the functioning of the
universe, and your response was to repeat the statement without stating
why. So why do YOU think it is required for the functioning of the
universe? And leave Einstein out of it.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 9:24:00 PM1/11/16

to

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:28:10 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> I don't know why you would think my response is indicative of feeling
> threatened? Why on earth would I feel threatened?

Because it is apparent you have no substantive dispute.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 9:33:49 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/2016 7:42 PM, benj wrote:

> Empty of anything?

It's clearly not empty of fields. So empty space does not mean "empty of
anything". And you say *I'm* the one that isn't thinking logically?

> No, there is no wave propagation in "nothing at all"
> That is insane nonsense.

But nobody says space is "nothing at all".

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 9:36:53 PM1/11/16

to

On 1/11/2016 7:52 PM, benj wrote:
> Boinker you are a moron. If aether gives space it's properties (we won't
> say the name of who said that)

But it doesn't.
I take it you're referring to a statement from 1920.
Note that it's now 96 years later.

Are you also going to cite references from 1538?

> then clearly the universe can't function
> if there is no aether. Space with no propeties will not allow a universe
> to be created.

But space does have properties. Without ether. So there you go.

> Duh.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 9:40:23 PM1/11/16

to

Why do you think that you are owed a substantive dispute?

If I told you that mice have IQs on average higher than chimpanzees, and
if I claimed that the moon doesn't really exist but is an atmospheric
apparition that is in fact an image of the sun, would you feel compelled
to offer a substantive dispute? If so, then please offer said
substantive dispute. If not, then point rests.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 11, 2016, 10:25:05 PM1/11/16

to

Maybe you should consider a gentler hobby. I heard pressing leaves in books can be quite satisfying.

Steven Carlip

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 12:56:01 AM1/12/16

to

In article <254ecf5b-6000-446f...@googlegroups.com>,
Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> Einstein in Leyden, 1920: "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".

You've left out the context. The full talk is available at
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html.
The paragraph you're quoting is

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities;
in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to

the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;
for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light,
but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and

time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought
of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea
of motion may not be applied to it."

Einstein is using "ether" as a synonym for what physicists would
now simply call "spacetime." This is, as he says, radically different
from what the term meant before relativity.

Steve Carlip

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 2:14:43 AM1/12/16

to

On 11/01/2016 2:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Why am I a crank? Am I politically incorrect? Not allowed to make a
> contribution? Subject to censorship? No, yes, yes,yes. Polite
> censorship is worse than direct confrontation; it is used to cover
> denial of my rights.

Why are you a crank? Because you're trying to argue for bringing back
something that was abandoned 2 centuries ago.

Are you not allowed to make a contribution? Nope, not on a moderated
newsgroup, you aren't. That's presumably why you're here on this
unmoderated newsgroup.

Denial of rights? You got no rights on a moderated newsgroup, you're
given privileges that you have to earn.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 2:22:23 AM1/12/16

to

On 11/01/2016 3:52 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.
>

> Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?

Nope, Einstein was stating stuff that was plainly becoming clear already
by that point. Talking by today's standards, physics was trending
towards his point of view, he put the final finishing touches on
existing physics trends. Parts of his theories were already proven right
within a year after he published them!

Peter Riedt on the other hand is arguing for the Luminoferous Aether in
the 21st century! For pete's sake, not only is physics not trending
towards that idea, it is trending away (far away) from that idea.

Yousuf Khan

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 3:34:23 AM1/12/16

to

You may have a point but I will stick with my aether which has only two attributes: It is everywhere where matter is not and it is compressible. It is responsible for gravity, inertia and centrifugal forces as I will show in my gravity theory. Better not.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 4:10:36 AM1/12/16

to

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:22:23 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 3:52 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > > Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.
> >
> > Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?
>
> Nope, Einstein was stating stuff that was plainly becoming clear already
> by that point.

No. His first papers were almost totally ignored.

Talking by today's standards, physics was trending
> towards his point of view,

No. One person, I forget who, recognized it.

he put the final finishing touches on
> existing physics trends. Parts of his theories were already proven right
> within a year after he published them!
>
> Peter Riedt on the other hand is arguing for the Luminoferous Aether in
> the 21st century

Have you a substantive dispute? No. Then go away.

For pete's sake, not only is physics not trending
> towards that idea, it is trending away (far away) from that idea.

Trends are arbitrary. They are not evidence. They are not substance. Stick with substance.

HVAC

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 5:27:51 AM1/12/16

to

Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?

-----------

The saying goes: "Tho some laughed at Einstein, they also laugh at bozo the clown".

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 10:04:04 AM1/12/16

to

On 1/11/2016 9:18 PM, benj wrote:

> On 01/11/2016 09:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 7:52 PM, benj wrote:
>>> Boinker you are a moron. If aether gives space it's properties (we won't
>>> say the name of who said that)
>>
>> But it doesn't.
>> I take it you're referring to a statement from 1920.
>> Note that it's now 96 years later.
>

> So now space has no properties if you say it doesn't?

Space DOES have properties. All by itself. No ether required.

>
>> Are you also going to cite references from 1538?
>

> Are you just going to make up physics?

Heck no. Let's try citing references later than 1920.

>
>>> then clearly the universe can't function
>>> if there is no aether. Space with no propeties will not allow a universe
>>> to be created.
>>
>> But space does have properties. Without ether. So there you go.
>

> Nothing at all cannot have properties.

But space isn't nothing at all. That's what YOU say it is, but that's
just you.

By the way, you make the claim that Halliday and Resnick state that
space is "nothing at all". So I looked in my copy. Nothing in any of the
three chapters devoted to Maxwell's equations and electromagnetic waves.
So, Mr. Bullshit Artist, it would be good of you to provide section
reference and contextual quote, indicating the surrounding material that
contains the reference you claim.

> To say it does is insane. (I mean
> REALLY insane, not just the usual INTERNET name calling)
>
> So Something gives space it's properties. And I (and a certain unnamed
> turn of the last century physicist) note that whatever it is, we'll name
> it "aether".

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 10:06:26 AM1/12/16

to

On 1/11/2016 9:18 PM, benj wrote:

> Ah, so that means if it is "something" we can give it a name! I got it!
> Let's use the name "aether" for historical reasons! OK?

Or what physicists call it. Space.

But if you want to be different, go for it.

If YOU want to define for your own personal purposes "space" to mean
"nothing at all", then you can do that too. While you're at it, you can
define "chair" to mean "any piece of furniture that you can set a beer
on". Pretty soon you'll have your own language.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 10:08:15 AM1/12/16

to

Or maybe you can stand on street corners, wearing clown pants and
dropping them occasionally while hollering "Pay ATTENTION to me! I'm
going to say something and I want you to ARGUE with me about it!"

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 10:24:11 AM1/12/16

to

On 11/01/2016 1:34 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Gold and the aether do exist. However the aether is more elusive than gold. Furthermore the aether is required for the universe to function.

Neutrinos are also more elusive than gold, yet we've discovered them.

What purpose does aether serve that makes it so essential for the
universe to work?

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 10:40:19 AM1/12/16

to

On 11/01/2016 2:21 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:02:19 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> An important question: Is there a need for an aether? No! And
>> the answer is that our fruitful theories in physics have no need
>> for an aether.
> No need for the aether because it doesn't fit fanciful mainstream theories.

Ah, "fanciful" mainstream theories, what every crank says about theories
that they don't have the educational background to understand, and
haven't yet taken the time to understand yet.

I'm not trained in modern physics either, I've from an engineering
background, and all I've ever learned about are classical physics. But
in the meantime, I've educated myself in modern physics, particle
physics, relativity, etc. Go read books about these things, and get to
understand them first before coming up with crank theories for
deficiencies in the real theories which you think exist without knowing
what these real theories mean.

Yousuf Khan

HVAC

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 11:10:21 AM1/12/16

to

>
> Nothing at all cannot have properties.

But space isn't nothing at all. That's what YOU say it is, but that's
just you.

By the way, you make the claim that Halliday and Resnick state that
space is "nothing at all". So I looked in my copy. Nothing in any of the
three chapters devoted to Maxwell's equations and electromagnetic waves.
So, Mr. Bullshit Artist, it would be good of you to provide section
reference and contextual quote, indicating the surrounding material that
contains the reference you claim.

--------------

You must understand... BJ and his entire worldview depend upon luminiferous (I always sound gay when I try to pronounce that word) ether. It's the same with 'gravitons'. Without these spectral particles, all of the (cough) science that BJ holds dear like ESP, ghosts, remote viewing, etc, fall apart in a cloud of Kookdust.

This is why he will fight to the bitter end over this.

PS- Hi BJ!

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 11:14:59 AM1/12/16

to

Tenaciously fighting to retain idiotic notions is well within his
rights, even if it is a stupid thing to do. Some people are like that.
They end up being recluses and a little .... off.

HVAC

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 11:36:19 AM1/12/16

to

Tenaciously fighting to retain idiotic notions is well within his
rights, even if it is a stupid thing to do. Some people are like that.
They end up being recluses and a little .... off.

-------------

And of course a kook might be seen as a bit more rational if they only held ONE kooky belief. But with BJ and all other kooks, the kook beliefs run the gamut. Esp. Ghosts. Aliens.... You name it. BJ will believe in it

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 11:36:53 AM1/12/16

to

On 11/01/2016 7:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Einstein in Leyden, 1920: "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".
>
> According to Einstein the aether is required for light, space and time, according to me for the functioning of the universe. You can ignore me but why would you ignore Einstein?

By the early 1920's, the other modern theory, Quantum Physics, hadn't
yet been completed. But by the late 20's, there were huge developments
in the theory, including contributions by Einstein himself. By then the
basis of the modern theory were in place, known as the Copenhagen
Interpretation. Quantum physics pretty much answered all remaining
questions about how light moves without an aether.

Yousuf Khan

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 3:03:31 PM1/12/16

to

On 1/12/2016 1:19 PM, benj wrote:

> Already supplied it long ago. Do your own work you lazy ass! So much
> easier to accuse someone of lying than to actually look something up!

Oh, but I did look it up. It ain't there, Halliday & Resnick, 3rd
edition. Not in Chapters 40, 41, 42.

Where did you imagine seeing it?

And what's more, where did you see a physical definition that empty
space is to be equated with "nothing at all" and devoid of properties?
Can't remember? Then how do you know you didn't make it up and FORGOT
that you made it up?

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 5:58:47 PM1/12/16

to

On 1/12/2016 4:53 PM, benj wrote:

> Yada, yada, yada. You are so skilled at looking things up when you want
> to try to spread some dogma but when I've given you the exact reference
> several times, you just turn "Wormley" and have never seen a thing.

I still don't see a reference. Yet you insist that you are sure you
remember providing the reference to something you can no longer refer to.

It's foolish to bluff when you're holding 9 high, Ben.

>
> Calling people names doesn't substitute for your shoddy work. I assure
> you it's in there.

Where then? Edition, section number, surrounding text.

What are you going to say to yourself in the mirror when you look for it
and you can't find it? Are you going to swear at yourself and curse your
diminishing mind?

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 12, 2016, 7:26:45 PM1/12/16

to

Many of these theories lack logic and proof and are supported only by an elite group and their followers. Science uses the same methods as religion in the past.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 13, 2016, 8:47:30 AM1/13/16

to

On 1/12/2016 6:26 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Many of these theories lack logic and proof and are supported only by an
> elite group and their followers. Science uses the same methods as religion in the past.

Scientific theories do not provide proof, nor have they EVER provided
proof. If you have expectations that they should, then you don't know
how science works.

As for how the theories are supported, they are supported by
experimental evidence. Not by people, but by measurements of nature. If
you do not buy that experimental evidence is an objective test of a
theory, then you do not know how science works.

Lastly, you say that these theories are supported by an elite group.
That "elite group" is scientists. They ARE the group that should measure
the quality of theories, and there is no other group that should remain
to be convinced. If you're going to say that theories should be
convincing to people other that scientists, then I'm going to respond
then that depends on your willingness to study the subject.

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 13, 2016, 8:58:29 AM1/13/16

to

On 12/01/2016 3:34 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> You may have a point but I will stick with my aether which has only
> two attributes: It is everywhere where matter is not and it is
> compressible. It is responsible for gravity, inertia and centrifugal
> forces as I will show in my gravity theory. Better not.

Then you're arguing for Le Sage Gravity, which is an even older theory
than Luminoferous Aether. It was around in the late 17th and early 18th
centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Modern physics has its own concept of an all-encompassing fluid that
fills all of space with energy. It's called the Vacuum Energy. It comes
from Quantum field theory, specifically Quantum Electrodynamics, which
is the theory of the Electric, Magnetic, and Weak fields.

Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

You don't need to tilt at windmills any longer, come on over to modern
physics and get to learn it. There are answers to almost everything in
there already: where mass comes from, where time comes from, where space
comes from, where energy comes from, etc.

Yousuf Khan

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 13, 2016, 8:58:53 AM1/13/16

to

On 1/12/2016 11:19 PM, benj wrote:

> Can't remember a thing, can you? Why do Libs think all the worlds
> problems can be solved with nothing but their clever debate with words.

>
>>> Calling people names doesn't substitute for your shoddy work. I assure
>>> you it's in there.
>>
>> Where then? Edition, section number, surrounding text.
>

> You are a literary genius. Find it.

I've told you where I've looked and where it isn't. You say it's there,
but can't say where. And so who is flinging bullshit here? Why, it's
you, isn't it?

>
>> What are you going to say to yourself in the mirror when you look for it
>> and you can't find it? Are you going to swear at yourself and curse your
>> diminishing mind?
>

> Words, words' words. It's why you libs flunk every science course you
> ever took.

I didn't flunk any science course. There you go making things up again.

> There are two kind of people in the world, Boinker. People
> who know how to actually accomplish things and understand how things
> work and you Libs who think that your fantasies are reality and you can
> get out of any situation with your skills with words. One day you may
> get a rude awaking when you can't use your mouth get a competent person
> to pull your chestnuts from the fire for you.

All I know, Ben, is that you fabricate "facts" and when confronted with
the fabrication, you dance and shuck and jive.

You are so full of shit, your eyes are brown.

>
> You are so funny when you try to use bullshit to solve all your problems.

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 13, 2016, 9:30:07 AM1/13/16

to

On 12/01/2016 7:26 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Many of these theories lack logic and proof and are supported only by an elite group and their followers. Science uses the same methods as religion in the past.

What logic is lacking? What don't you understand?

When you talk about "elite groups", then you're firmly in the crank
category. Conspiracy theory fans.

Yousuf Khan

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 14, 2016, 3:49:54 AM1/14/16

to

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:26:45 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:

Many of these theories lack logic and proof and are supported only by an elite group and their followers. Science uses the same methods as religion in the past.

Very true. Much of science has been turned into a religion. They tend to fall in love with their models. They confuse their model with reality and that underlies their rationale for maintaining the model. They don't test it, they protect it.

And then there is the "church ladies." Like the twits here in this thread. They don't actually do any science. They don't have any original thoughts of their own. They avoid any of the thought processes that would lead them to confront the conundrums that are evident to those that put in the effort to uncover them. They seem to think that lecturing people about the mundane methods of science--something most of us learned in high school--makes them a scientist.

You are right, though. A big problem in science is that it tends to evolve into a religion, with all the trappings (including self-righteous "church ladies"). Most of the public follows them like sheep.

Given these realities, the way to proceed is to take your message to the public. Avoid the pretenders, nitwits, and church ladies and begin to establish your own followers.

James McGinn

unread,

Jan 14, 2016, 3:51:08 AM1/14/16

to

When you call somebody a crank, without addressing their argument, you are officially in the "church lady" category.

HVAC

unread,

Jan 14, 2016, 6:46:35 AM1/14/16

to

When you call somebody a crank, without addressing their argument, you are officially in the "church lady" category

-------------

What if one calls them fuckwads, snappaheads and kooks?

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 14, 2016, 5:46:50 PM1/14/16

to

On 11/01/2016 10:18 PM, benj wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 09:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> But space does have properties. Without ether. So there you go.
>

> Nothing at all cannot have properties. To say it does is insane. (I mean

> REALLY insane, not just the usual INTERNET name calling)
>
> So Something gives space it's properties. And I (and a certain unnamed
> turn of the last century physicist) note that whatever it is, we'll name
> it "aether".

Space is not considered nothing anymore, both General Relativity and
Quantum field theory have taken care of that. Both consider it to be a
something now, and it is an actor in this play, just as much as matter
and energy are. A completely empty place, with absolutely nothing in it,
and no properties of its own, is called a null set.

It just isn't "The Aether". That was the wrong model. Just like in
chemistry, there used to be a time when they believed that there were
only 4 elements of matter: fire, water, air, and earth. Sure the concept
of elements was right, just not that particular concept of elements.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 14, 2016, 6:03:47 PM1/14/16

to

On 12/01/2016 12:56 AM, Steven Carlip wrote:
> You've left out the context. The full talk is available at
> http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html.
> The paragraph you're quoting is
>
> "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general
> theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities;
> in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to

> the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;
> for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light,
> but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and

> time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
> intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought
> of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
> as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea
> of motion may not be applied to it."
>
> Einstein is using "ether" as a synonym for what physicists would
> now simply call "spacetime." This is, as he says, radically different
> from what the term meant before relativity.

In fact, around that time frame, Quantum Field Theory hadn't yet been
fully developed. So he needed a placeholder term to describe what the
new actor on the stage should be called, so he fell back on the old
Aether term. By the time Quantum was more developed, by the end of that
decade, then it turned out that spacetime was the actor itself. It had
its own properties, and it was considerably more complex than the old
Aether ever could be. If he had given that same speech just 10 years
later, then he would've called it "spacetime" rather than "aether". His
own General Relativity provided the bones of spacetime, while Quantum
provided the flesh of spacetime (or maybe it's vice-versa, whatever).

I toyed with the idea of calling spacetime as a synonym for Aether
myself at one time. But really after awhile, I realized that Aether is
simply the wrong model. Call Aether an early model for spacetime, except
it wasn't space nor time, it simply existed in space & time, just like
matter and energy does. In the current model, space & time are united
and interact with matter and energy. There's no way the earlier models
of Aether could do that. So it's just wrong to call it Aether, it's the
wrong model.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 14, 2016, 6:09:49 PM1/14/16

to

On 11/01/2016 3:52 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:

> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:45:32 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>

>>>> What Einstein called an aether, is now called just space-time
>>>> and is different to luminoferous aether, that was refuted.

>>
>>>
>>> Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
>>>

>> And why LET was abandoned.... ?
>>
> For good reasons. Let was wrong as was MMX. But the aether has nothing to do with LET or MMX. Neither can prove or disprove the aether.

MMX was not wrong, it was what proved that LET was wrong. If you're not
talking about Luminoferous Aether, then you're not talking about Aether.
You've created your own model for Aether, which is not the same as what
LET was. If you're saying that your Aether model is different from LET,
then it must be similar to what we moderns call Spacetime. So you're
here arguing about renaming Spacetime to your Aether. There's no point
in doing that, we all know it as spacetime now anyways.

Yousuf Khan

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 14, 2016, 7:14:19 PM1/14/16

to

Maybe you and I are calling the same thing by different names. I am of the opinion however, that time is not an attribute of space. Time is only the consequence of motion which can be observed and measured by our definition of time (future, present, past and duration).

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 15, 2016, 10:03:55 AM1/15/16

to

On 1/14/2016 6:14 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Maybe you and I are calling the same thing by different names. I am of the opinion however,
> that time is not an attribute of space. Time is only the consequence of motion which can be
> observed and measured by our definition of time (future, present, past and duration).

Peter, nobody claims that time is an attribute of space.

What is claimed is that time and space are not completely independent of
each other.

There is an analog in everyday life. Suppose you have an irregular
object and you want to describe its dimensions in terms of length and
width (leaving height out of it for now). Length is not an attribute of
width, nor is width an attribute of length. But what you notice is that
the length and the width of your irregular object depends on how the
object is oriented with respect to the axes for length and width. Change
the orientation of the object, and the length AND width of the object
will now be different. So you can say that length and width are just
elements of some larger kind of space, and it is better to map the
object out in a plane rather than by assuming length and width are
independent.

Same with space and time. Change the orientation of an object with
respect to the axes of distance and time, and you'll find that both the
spatial size and the duration will change. In this way, space and time
are not independent, but just some elements of some larger kind of
thing, called spacetime.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 15, 2016, 6:49:18 PM1/15/16

to

Time is the measure of change. No change, no time i.e. time is a consequence of change not of space.

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 15, 2016, 7:43:24 PM1/15/16

to

On 1/15/16 5:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Time is the measure of change. No change, no time i.e. time is a consequence of change not of space.

The universe is expanding (changing). And you, Peter, are moving
through spacetime at c.

> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/World_line.svg

--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 16, 2016, 11:13:40 AM1/16/16

to

On 1/15/16 5:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:

> Time is the measure of change. No change, no time i.e. time is a consequence of change not of space.

Peter is moving through spacetime at c. Why does time slow
for objects in motion?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vOCgoIZL4o

HVAC

unread,

Jan 16, 2016, 11:33:39 AM1/16/16

to

Time is the measure of change. No change, no time i.e. time is a consequence of change not of space

-----------

And this is how the universe will end. When one moment will be indistinguishable from another.

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 16, 2016, 6:34:01 PM1/16/16

to

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 12:13:40 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/15/16 5:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > Time is the measure of change. No change, no time i.e. time is a consequence of change not of space.
>
>
> Peter is moving through spacetime at c. Why does time slow
> for objects in motion?
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vOCgoIZL4o
>
>

Sam, I am of the opinion that a second is constant at rest and at any speed.

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 16, 2016, 7:27:25 PM1/16/16

to

On 1/16/16 5:33 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Sam, I am of the opinion that a second is constant at rest and at any
> speed.
>

For you, Peter, locally, you experience proper time.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

Somebody in relative motion to you or in a different gravitational
well would measure your time interval ∆t slightly different than you
would.

Such measurements are confirmed in GNSS, particle accelerators,
supernovae nucleosynthesis decay rates, and so on.

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 2:40:05 AM1/17/16

to

On 14/01/2016 7:14 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Maybe you and I are calling the same thing by different names. I am
> of the opinion however, that time is not an attribute of space. Time
> is only the consequence of motion which can be observed and measured
> by our definition of time (future, present, past and duration).

Nobody calls time an attribute of space, it is co-equal with space. This
is much like left is co-equal with forward, while backward is co-equal
with up. They are all just dimensions.

What you're saying is that time doesn't exist, a figment of our
imaginations in other words. A lot of people are confused by time,
because it is the one dimension that we don't have any control over.
Time moves whether we ourselves move or not. Every other dimension, we
have the free-will to move about in any direction almost. But just
because we lack control over a dimension, doesn't mean that that
dimension doesn't exist.

Relativity shows us that time slows down, the faster we move through
space. This is a measured phenomenon, proven science, it has been
measured, there's not arguing with this. We are making use of this
time-slowing phenomenon right now in many common applications throughout
the world. If time didn't exist, then we couldn't control time to this
level. We do not have the freedom to go back in time, but we have the
ability to slowdown our travel through time. That's the level of control
we have over time, and that's it.

The dimensions are fluid in the modern age. They can expand and contract
as much as they like. The only constant now is the speed of light.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 2:44:02 AM1/17/16

to

On 15/01/2016 6:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Time is the measure of change. No change, no time i.e. time is a consequence of change not of space.

Nope, you got it backwards, change is the consequence of time. When time
doesn't exist for an object (like it doesn't for photons and other
things travelling at the speed of light), then that object cannot
change. Neutrinos, travelling just slightly less than the speed of
light, have the ability to change, because time exists for them, even if
it goes by mind-bogglingly slowly for them. Mind-boggling slow passage
of time is still more time passage than none.

Yousuf Khan

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 3:11:31 AM1/17/16

to

My opinion against yours. I let you win.

Sergio

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 11:26:10 AM1/17/16

to

On 1/11/2016 9:24 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:40:23 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 8:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:

<snip crap>

>
> Maybe you should consider a gentler hobby. I heard pressing leaves
> in books can be quite satisfying.
>

is that your job ?
How many years experience do you have pressing leaves in books ?

Sergio

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 11:28:06 AM1/17/16

to

On 1/12/2016 3:10 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:22:23 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 11/01/2016 3:52 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>> Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.
>>>
>>> Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?
>>
>> Nope, Einstein was stating stuff that was plainly becoming clear already
>> by that point.
>
> No. His first papers were almost totally ignored.
>

liar.

> Talking by today's standards, physics was trending
>> towards his point of view,
>
> No. One person, I forget who, recognized it.
>

Liar.

>
> he put the final finishing touches on
>> existing physics trends. Parts of his theories were already proven right
>> within a year after he published them!
>>
>> Peter Riedt on the other hand is arguing for the Luminoferous Aether in
>> the 21st century
>
> Have you a substantive dispute? No. Then go away.

troll, you have meth habit.

>
> For pete's sake, not only is physics not trending
>> towards that idea, it is trending away (far away) from that idea.
>
> Trends are arbitrary. They are not evidence. They are not substance. Stick with substance.

you, jamie-boy, never have "substance",
you smoke it all.

Sergio

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 11:29:00 AM1/17/16

to

you self evident troll, jamie-boy.

Yousuf Khan

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 12:16:01 PM1/17/16

to

Watch this video, it'll explain things with animations:

When Time Breaks Down | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GguAN1_JouQ&feature=em-subs_digest

Yousuf Khan

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 4:16:40 PM1/17/16

to

On 1/15/2016 5:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Time is the measure of change. No change, no time i.e. time is a
> consequence of change not of space.

If a rock is the same at 2:15 in the afternoon and at 7:38 in the
evening, has no time elapsed?

HVAC

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 4:25:26 PM1/17/16

to

If the quantum state of every atom had no change, I would say you are correct

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 17, 2016, 9:21:12 PM1/17/16

to

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 5:16:40 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/15/2016 5:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > Time is the measure of change. No change, no time i.e. time is a
> > consequence of change not of space.
>
> If a rock is the same at 2:15 in the afternoon and at 7:38 in the
> evening, has no time elapsed?
>
>

The rock has not experienced any change or time but other things have. Time is dependent on all changes in the universe.

Odd Bodkin

unread,

Jan 18, 2016, 2:14:59 PM1/18/16

to

And how would time over here have any idea about changes that are
happening 300,000 km over there?

Peter Riedt

unread,

Jan 18, 2016, 3:36:51 PM1/18/16

to

I should correct my post. The rock is subject to the law of decay and therefore always subject to change. But that is not important.

Time and change is not important to the rock and other inanimate things. Only lifeforms are able to be aware of it. Lifeforms are given sensors by nature to recognize change and time. It is a great mystery how it could have happened and maybe what the purpose of it is.

The Aether, Michelson and Einstein

Peter Riedt

reber g=emc^2

omni...@gmail.com

Jeff-Relf.Me

Peter Riedt, Einstein's "Aether" (SpaceTime) is a 4-D, static timeScape; the future is just as fixed as the past. What we want, all our desires, has been programmed into us (by nature). We're robots. "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.

Peter Riedt

Helmut Wabnig

Poutnik

Sylvia Else

Peter Riedt

Sylvia Else

Peter Riedt

Yousuf Khan

Poutnik

Peter Riedt

Peter Riedt

Poutnik

Poutnik

Peter Riedt

Poutnik

Odd Bodkin

Mahipal

Peter Riedt

Sam Wormley

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

Sam Wormley

HVAC

Peter Riedt

HVAC

Sam Wormley

Peter Riedt

Peter Riedt

HVAC

Sam Wormley

Poutnik

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

James McGinn

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

James McGinn

Peter Riedt

Sam Wormley

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

James McGinn

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

James McGinn

Steven Carlip

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

Peter Riedt

James McGinn

HVAC

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan

HVAC

Odd Bodkin

HVAC

Yousuf Khan

Odd Bodkin

Odd Bodkin

Peter Riedt

Odd Bodkin

Yousuf Khan

Odd Bodkin

Yousuf Khan

James McGinn

James McGinn

HVAC

Yousuf Khan