Luminiferous Aether

[Paul Alsing]

https://tinyurl.com/2sc89srb

"As Carl Sagan famously said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” We have no proof that the aether exists, but can never prove the negative: that no aether exists. All we can demonstrate, and have demonstrated, is that if the aether exists, it has no properties that affect the matter and radiation that we actually do observe, and so the burden isn’t on those looking to disprove its existence: the burden of proof is on those who favor the aether, to provide evidence that it truly is real."

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>We have no proof that the aether exists, but can never prove the negative: that no aether exists.<<

all have to do is- define a term in the math being used as being the aether -> then its exists QED

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/1781bd2b-1983-4759-9a85-737735ffff09n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Einstein 1905 SR paper - On Electrodynamics of moving bodies - is interpreted as meaning that the ether does not exist. But nowhere in the math that Einstein presents does he say where in the math is the ether. i.e. it is an undefined mathematical term. -> Therefore all one needs to do is define the mathematical term and then therfore it exists, because it is in the math. QED

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Mathematics is the language of physics; so therefore all one needs to do is to define ether in that language and it exists. QED

[Paul Alsing]

Yet another guy who *really* needs to read a dang textbook. Do you actually think that you are smarter than all those physicists out there who disagree with you? I got bad news for you...

[ROGER ANDERTON]

you are in denial; don't know if "they" disagree

mathematical terms exist if say they exist

learn some basic math

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/00b9f6f0-20ca-4ebf-b3bd-0c84c02a3e11n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Alsing]

I'm pretty confident that I'm not the guy here who is in denial. YOU deny pretty much all of mainstream science, and that is foolish in many ways.

I'm also not the guy who needs who needs to learn basic math since math is one of my degrees from college!

You could use a good course in logic, too... just sayin'...

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Newfound 'glitch' in Einstein's relativity could rewrite the rules of the universe, study suggests

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/newfound-glitch-in-einsteins-relativity-could-rewrite-the-rules-of-the-universe-study-suggests

[Paul Alsing]

 interesting

Yeah, that is pretty much how science works!  A lot of "could" and "may" claims in this article, but no actual evidence one way or another. The "tweaks" referenced in the article are all

 interesting and may indeed lead to a modification to the theory, and that would be a good thing, right? Another step closer to " the way things really are". right?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>Another step closer to " the way things really are". right?<<

as per Neo-Newtonians wrong step was made with going with Einstein's relativity, so making more steps along path of Einstein's relativity is just making more wrong steps; should take step back to Newtonian physics!

1995

https://www.the-scientist.com/news/aaas-gives-dissident-group-a-chance-to-challenge-physics-theory-58530

------ Original Message ------
From: "Paul Alsing" <pnal...@gmail.com>
To: "Relativity skeptics" <relativit...@googlegroups.com>

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Relativity skeptics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">relativity-skeptics+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/f3afaa31-6b1b-4181-844a-766beed5853dn%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

add on: Also all that nonsense which believers in Einstein's relativity have when "they" say there is no aether; when it can be said that there is aether in the math.

------ Original Message ------
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>

[ROGER ANDERTON]

on aether issue

Einstein 1905 SR talks about motion relative to inertial frames.

Before Einstein - were talking about motion relative to aether; so were talking about motion relative to aether frame.

Einstein makes no mention of motion relative to aether frame; he is talking about motion relative to inertial frame - so what he calls inertial frame is what is aether frame.

Each inertial observer is dealing with motion relative to their aether frame.

Aether therefore exists.

But rather than accept logic, those who believe in Einstein's relativity say aether does not exist.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I certainly agree that Einstein implicitly accepted an ether without himself realizing it because the only purpose of the LT is to account for the absence of an ether wind. Einstein himself accepted the ether in a talk in 1920. To keep the LT is to keep the ether. I don't keep either.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

When Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether, he made the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history because the only purpose of the LT was to save the ether from the null result. This proves Einstein had absolutely no comprehension of the science.

On Friday, May 17, 2024 at 1:56:21 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

As you know, Einstein developed an ether concept he accepted as shown by Ludwik Kostro in his book, (c.2000) "Einstein and the Ether."

On Friday, May 17, 2024 at 1:56:21 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The ether exists in Einstein's math but not in reality.

On Friday, May 17, 2024 at 1:56:21 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Paul doesn't know he accepts the ether when he accepts the LT. :)

On Friday, May 17, 2024 at 1:56:21 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[Paul Alsing]

Sorry, there is zero evidence that another exists... and even if it does, it does not affect relativity in any way. This has been known forva very long time.

Read a dang textbook!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Poor Paul cannot provide any evidence he comprehends anything.

On Friday, May 17, 2024 at 1:56:21 AM UTC-7 R.J.An...@btinternet.com wrote:

[Paul Alsing]

Poor Larry has no evidence to support any of his claims... show us a single verifiable piece of evidence that luminous aether exists. Hint: there isn't any!

I'll make the popcorn.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>it does not affect relativity in any way.<<

where shown; not in Einstein 1905 SR paper

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/97226663-a907-463e-bc95-0f0894706f0dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Alsing]

I see you are getting desparate...  but there is always that textbook to set you straight... this is, you know, high school stuff, first semester...

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Not in textbooks your claim that -> " it does not affect relativity in any way."

So, presumably it is really you that is desperate enough to make stuff up.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/8d4e3f05-ce69-4eae-a38d-bb8007078e73n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Alsing]

You really, really need to study this stuff...

Aether theories - Wikipedia

" In addition to possessing more conceptual clarity, Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could explain all of the experimental results without referring to an aether at all. This eventually led most physicists to conclude that the earlier notion of a luminiferous aether was not a useful concept."

Either you are just not educated at all in these matters, or you are a full-blown crank Which is it? This stuff is in virtually EVERY relativity textbook. You should try reading one of them!

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I have studied these things and what is written is a lot of contradictory statements.

As well as what you say as being at that website, it says a lot of other things such as ->

>>Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity<<

So, what is that supposed to mean (?) is the gravitational field the aether; and when you deny the existence of aether, you also deny existence of gravitational field?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/relativity-skeptics/2bbde3f0-2b06-4b29-938e-ba40ee3a7360n%40googlegroups.com.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

add on:

so when say ->" In addition to possessing more conceptual clarity, Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could explain all of the experimental results without referring to an aether at all. This eventually led most physicists to conclude that the earlier notion of a luminiferous aether was not a useful concept."

so what did Einstein mean by "aether" - did he mean "gravitational field" - and his 1905 paper was dealing with no experiments involving gravity/aether?