Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #596938 > unrolled thread

"Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-07 06:25 -0800
    Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 12:33 -0800
      Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-07 15:58 -0800
        Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 16:36 -0800
    Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-08 10:28 +0100
      Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-12-08 14:26 +0000
        Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 02:15 -0800
          Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-12-09 13:19 +0100
          Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-12-09 13:59 +0000
            Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:29 -0800
            Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:32 -0800
              Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-12-09 15:41 +0000
                Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:19 -0800
                  Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 16:22 +0000
                    Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-09 13:03 -0800
                      Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-09 21:28 +0000
                        Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 16:16 -0600
                          Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Hanoi Cuocco <ouco@ocaoch.ho> - 2022-12-10 00:27 +0000
                            Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-09 21:45 -0600
                              Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-10 02:16 -0500
                                Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 10:08 -0600
                                  Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Lou  Abatangelo <lbta@autala.nl> - 2022-12-10 20:17 +0000
                                    Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-10 16:14 -0600
                        Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 20:53 -0800
                          Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 04:54 -0800
                            Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-10 10:57 -0500
                              Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 13:35 -0800
                      Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-10 04:03 +0100
                        Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 04:57 -0800
                        Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2022-12-17 19:02 +0000
                          Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-12-18 13:51 +0000
                          Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-18 21:10 +0100
                            Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 14:51 -0800
                            Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Aether Regaind <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> - 2022-12-19 19:49 +0000
                              Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-19 15:17 -0600
                                Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-19 16:07 -0600
                                Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:50 -0800
                                Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-12-22 09:12 +0000
                                  Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-22 12:21 -0600
                                    Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-22 11:23 -0800
                                      Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 09:20 -0800
                                        Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 10:35 -0800
                                          Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 13:04 -0800
                                            Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-23 13:19 -0800
                                              Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 14:00 -0800
                                Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemoveandReplaceATkevinaylward.co.uk> - 2022-12-29 08:01 +0000
                                  Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 00:28 -0800
                                  Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-29 11:30 -0600
                                    Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 10:58 -0800
                                      Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-12-29 13:08 -0600
                                        Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 21:41 -0800
                              Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-20 22:46 +0100
                            Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-12-20 22:28 +0100
                              Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Vincenzo Longo <olcv@ovgingln.og> - 2022-12-20 23:57 +0000
                  Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-12-09 16:34 +0000
                    Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:17 -0800
          Crank John-Erik Persson chimes in "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 07:45 -0800
            Re: Crank John-Erik Persson chimes in John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:22 -0800
              Re: Crank John-Erik Persson chimes in "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 08:38 -0800
                Re: Crank John-Erik Persson chimes in John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 09:17 -0800
          Re: "Physics" of Time Dilation - contradiction? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 07:52 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#597199

On 12/10/2022 1:16 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 12/9/2022 10:45 PM, whodat wrote:
>> On 12/9/2022 6:27 PM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> You simply cannot get off the topic of gays. Look at this thread, you
>> keep accusing others and bring the topic into discussions where it never
>> was before. Too bad, you're the self loathing gay in these discussions.
>>
>> Gay and crazy, that's you.
>>
> 
> You realize that you are arguing with the nymshifting troll, don't you? 
> You are helping it in its mission, which is to disrupt and cause chaos 
> into these groups.

Thanks for your take on the matter. I think you grant our gay troll too 
much credit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597221

whodat wrote:

> On 12/10/2022 1:16 AM, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/9/2022 10:45 PM, whodat wrote:
>>> You simply cannot get off the topic of gays. Look at this thread, you
>>> keep accusing others and bring the topic into discussions where it
>>> never was before. Too bad, you're the self loathing gay in these
>>> discussions. Gay and crazy, that's you.
>> You realize that you are arguing with the nymshifting troll, don't you?
>> You are helping it in its mission, which is to disrupt and cause chaos
>> into these groups.
> 
> Thanks for your take on the matter. I think you grant our gay troll too
> much credit.

you disgusting putrid gay, that's exactly why people are hating you gays, 
trying to fuck others telling them they are gay. You deplorable subhuman 
excrement. All the bad in this world inherently comes from you, gays. You 
have no children, no family, no anything. You see gays head of states in 
capitalist countries. Like america. How many gays they have as head of 
state. I am communist, not capitalist. I am proud to be a *communist*.

keep your stinking mouth shut, you stupid capitalist gay. It's obvious 
that you are gay, and descend along a gay family.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597236

On 12/10/2022 2:17 PM, Lou Abatangelo wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>> On 12/10/2022 1:16 AM, Volney wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2022 10:45 PM, whodat wrote:
>>>> You simply cannot get off the topic of gays. Look at this thread, you
>>>> keep accusing others and bring the topic into discussions where it
>>>> never was before. Too bad, you're the self loathing gay in these
>>>> discussions. Gay and crazy, that's you.
>>> You realize that you are arguing with the nymshifting troll, don't you?
>>> You are helping it in its mission, which is to disrupt and cause chaos
>>> into these groups.
>>
>> Thanks for your take on the matter. I think you grant our gay troll too
>> much credit.
> 
> you disgusting putrid gay, that's exactly why people are hating you gays,
> trying to fuck others telling them they are gay. You deplorable subhuman
> excrement. All the bad in this world inherently comes from you, gays. You
> have no children, no family, no anything. You see gays head of states in
> capitalist countries. Like america. How many gays they have as head of
> state. I am communist, not capitalist. I am proud to be a *communist*.

A proud communist is a stupid communist. Does that make you feel
special?

> keep your stinking mouth shut, you stupid capitalist gay. It's obvious
> that you are gay, and descend along a gay family.

Ladies and gentlemen readers of these newsgroups. It is clear that these
attempted troll postings are the work product of a child, perhaps in the
early teens, but perhaps even younger.

Whenever our troll is feeling inadequate, as here, anyone can clearly
see the desperation kick in. The latest posting by our gay nymshifting
troll was supposed to make me angry. Instead I feel sorry for it. How
about I get you a nice glass of your favorite soft drink, and a comic
book, or maybe a candy bar or bubblegum?

Class always tells with false bravado close behind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597175

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:28:29 PM UTC-8, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
> Trolidan7 wrote: 
> 
> >>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, 
> you 
> >>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no 
> >>> existence. 
> >> 
> >> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You 
> >> neither had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay? 
> > 
> > I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established 
> > 'ether' properties. 
> > If a word does not have meaning, then if you start attacking 
> > a bogeybear without meaning, then you might be attacking something 
> > true in the name of some horrible bogeybear. 
> > But if it doesn't have clear meaning, then you never really know. 
> > If you call 'ether' 'spacetime' and 'spacetime' 'ether', does 
> > that mean that 'relativity' is not true because some of it 
> > is based upon 'spacetime' and not 'ether'?
> you mix words together. In physics something not seen/detected or properly 
> derived, it does NOT exists. Immaterial. Which is another domain. 
> Different from science. Here's some proofs: 
> 
> Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over 
> Decorated Hero & Spy 
> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi

Here is a piece of afternoon time dilation at the Zürich HB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LowaE3ShnCw 

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597187

On Saturday, 10 December 2022 at 05:53:55 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:28:29 PM UTC-8, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: 
> > Trolidan7 wrote: 
> > 
> > >>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, 
> > you 
> > >>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no 
> > >>> existence. 
> > >> 
> > >> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You 
> > >> neither had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay? 
> > > 
> > > I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established 
> > > 'ether' properties. 
> > > If a word does not have meaning, then if you start attacking 
> > > a bogeybear without meaning, then you might be attacking something 
> > > true in the name of some horrible bogeybear. 
> > > But if it doesn't have clear meaning, then you never really know. 
> > > If you call 'ether' 'spacetime' and 'spacetime' 'ether', does 
> > > that mean that 'relativity' is not true because some of it 
> > > is based upon 'spacetime' and not 'ether'? 
> > you mix words together. In physics something not seen/detected or properly 
> > derived, it does NOT exists. Immaterial. Which is another domain. 
> > Different from science. Here's some proofs: 
> > 
> > Russian TV Mocks America for Chosing a Black Lesbian Drug Addict Over 
> > Decorated Hero & Spy 
> > https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/FV0HU7izChGi
> Here is a piece of afternoon time dilation at the Zürich HB: 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LowaE3ShnCw 

Bullshit, UTC time doesn't dilate, TAI time doesn't
dilate, GPS time doesn't dilate, zone times don't 
dilate, none of the real times dilates.
Dilation only exists in the wet dreams of some
religious maniacs.
> 
> -- 
> Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597197

On 12/10/2022 7:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 December 2022 at 05:53:55 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:

>> Here is a piece of afternoon time dilation at the Zürich HB:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LowaE3ShnCw
> 
> Bullshit, UTC time doesn't dilate, TAI time doesn't
> dilate, GPS time doesn't dilate, zone times don't
> dilate, none of the real times dilates.

Since UTC time, TAI time, GPS time and timezone times (UTC+x) are only 
valid at low speeds at or near the geoid, and they are intended for use 
on or near the earth's surface, sure you won't see dilation with these. 
But even with satellites moving rapidly and high in orbit time dilation 
is seen, for example the GPS satellites running 38uS/day fast as seen 
from earth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597233

On Saturday, 10 December 2022 at 16:57:49 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 7:54 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> > On Saturday, 10 December 2022 at 05:53:55 UTC+1, JanPB wrote: 
> 
> >> Here is a piece of afternoon time dilation at the Zürich HB: 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LowaE3ShnCw 
> > 
> > Bullshit, UTC time doesn't dilate, TAI time doesn't 
> > dilate, GPS time doesn't dilate, zone times don't 
> > dilate, none of the real times dilates.
> Since UTC time, TAI time, GPS time and timezone times (UTC+x) are only 
> valid at low speeds at or near the geoid

1)An assertion of a stupid Mike is not even valid in
his moronic relativistic church
2)"valid" or not "valid", they don't dilate. No real
time dilates, makin  the dilation present only
in the wet dreams of your bunch of idiots.

> is seen, for example the GPS satellites running 38uS/day fast as seen 
> from earth.

A lie, of course, as expected from a fanatic
idiot. What we observe is that the clocks are
 synchronized with the precision of an acceptable
error.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597161

Trolidan7 wrote:

> On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>> John-Erik Persson wrote:
>>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, you
>>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no
>>> existence.
>> 
>> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You neither
>> had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay?
> 
> I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established
> 'ether' properties.

There were: The ether was introduced(?) by Maxwell as luminiferous (light-
carrying), required as a medium for electromagnetic waves.  At first, the 
ether was assumed to be completely dragged along by motion.  But stellar 
aberration contradicted that.  Then the Fizeau experiment seemed to confirm 
Fresnel’s hypothesis that the ether would be partially dragged along.  
However, the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment which indicated 
that if there is an ether it would be motionless, contradicted both previous 
observations.  Then Lorentz and Poincaré came up with length contraction and 
time dilation to fix that.

But Einstein showed that all of those observations can be explained, and 
Lorentz’/Poincaré’s equations can be derived, without assuming an ether.  
And then he showed that other phenomena can be explained that way, too.

So today it is basically only crackpots who take the ether concept 
seriously.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597188

On Saturday, 10 December 2022 at 04:03:16 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Trolidan7 wrote: 
> 
> > On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: 
> >> John-Erik Persson wrote: 
> >>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, you 
> >>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no 
> >>> existence. 
> >> 
> >> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You neither 
> >> had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay? 
> > 
> > I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established 
> > 'ether' properties.
> There were: The ether was introduced(?) by Maxwell as luminiferous (light- 
> carrying), required as a medium for electromagnetic waves. At first, the 
> ether was assumed to be completely dragged along by motion. But stellar 
> aberration contradicted that. Then the Fizeau experiment seemed to confirm 
> Fresnel’s hypothesis that the ether would be partially dragged along. 
> However, the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment which indicated 
> that if there is an ether it would be motionless, contradicted both previous 
> observations. Then Lorentz and Poincaré came up with length contraction and 
> time dilation to fix that. 
> 
> But Einstein showed that all of those observations can be explained, and 
> Lorentz’/Poincaré’s equations can be derived, without assuming an ether. 
> And then he showed that other phenomena can be explained that way, too. 
> 
> So today it is basically only crackpots who take the ether concept 
> seriously. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory
one of these crackpots - pointed out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597721

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Trolidan7 wrote:
> 
>> On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>>> John-Erik Persson wrote:
>>>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, you
>>>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no
>>>> existence.
>>>
>>> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You neither
>>> had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay?
>>
>> I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established
>> 'ether' properties.
> 
> There were: The ether was introduced(?) by Maxwell as luminiferous (light-
> carrying), required as a medium for electromagnetic waves.  At first, the 
> ether was assumed to be completely dragged along by motion.  But stellar 
> aberration contradicted that.  Then the Fizeau experiment seemed to confirm 
> Fresnel’s hypothesis that the ether would be partially dragged along.  
> However, the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment which indicated 
> that if there is an ether it would be motionless, contradicted both previous 
> observations.  Then Lorentz and Poincaré came up with length contraction and 
> time dilation to fix that.
> 

Consider the following aether model of the solar system:

The aether in the *common* orbital/ecliptic plane of the planets is in
motion as in a VORTEX. The Earth and the other planets are stationary
w.r.t this local vortically moving aether.

Such a model is consistent with:

1) Stellar aberration
2) Michelson–Morley
3) Long persistence of planetary orbits

> But Einstein showed that all of those observations can be explained, and 
> Lorentz’/Poincaré’s equations can be derived, without assuming an ether.  
> And then he showed that other phenomena can be explained that way, too.
> 
> So today it is basically only crackpots who take the ether concept 
> seriously.
> 

To quote Einstein himself:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity

" [24] 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. "

> 
> PointedEars
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597802

"Aether Regaind"  wrote in message news:tnl3ld$3nc4p$1@dont-email.me...

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Trolidan7 wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>>> John-Erik Persson wrote:
>>>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, you
>>>> cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply no
>>>> existence.
>>>
>>> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You neither
>>>> had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay?
>>
>>> I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established
>>> 'ether' properties.
>
>> There were: The ether was introduced(?) by Maxwell as luminiferous 
>> (light-
>> carrying), required as a medium for electromagnetic waves.  At first, the
>> ether was assumed to be completely dragged along by motion.  But stellar
>> aberration contradicted that.  Then the Fizeau experiment seemed to 
>> confirm
>> Fresnel’s hypothesis that the ether would be partially dragged along.
>> However, the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment which 
>> indicated
>> that if there is an ether it would be motionless, contradicted both 
>> previous
>> observations.  Then Lorentz and Poincaré came up with length contraction 
>> and
>> time dilation to fix that.
>

>Consider the following aether model of the solar system:

>The aether in the *common* orbital/ecliptic plane of the planets is in
>motion as in a VORTEX. The Earth and the other planets are stationary
>w.r.t this local vortically moving aether.

>Such a model is consistent with:

>1) Stellar aberration
>2) Michelson–Morley
>3) Long persistence of planetary orbits

>> But Einstein showed that all of those observations can be explained, and
>> Lorentz’/Poincaré’s equations can be derived, without assuming an ether.
>> And then he showed that other phenomena can be explained that way, too.

Yeah... usual water is wet none argument

Sure, its straightforward to create a blind behaviour mathematical model, 
that ignores any physics, to model observations.

Its just a curve fit to data. What's your point?

That has no relevance as to whether physical processes are actually required 
to enact those observations.

Einstein’s approach was to simply dispense with any physical reasoning as to 
why or how, the SOL was, apparently invariant, and just take the principle 
at face value. Indeed, Einstein’s position was expressed as:

“…but in addition to this most weighty group of theories, there is another 
group consisting of what I call theories of principle. These employ the 
analytic, not the synthetic method. Their starting-point and foundation are 
not hypothetical constituents, but empirically observed general properties 
of phenomena, principles from which mathematical formula are deduced of such 
a kind that they apply to every case which presents itself. The theory of 
relativity is a theory of principle…

SR requires that in a truly empty space, the SOL=c exits.

Unfortunately for Einstein, without real physical clocks and rulers, time 
and space and thus the SOL are clearly meaningless.

Its the elephant in the room. The LT and LI cannot exist in an empty 
universe, because time and space cannot exist, well, excluding magic.

Einstein didn't know about the quantum vacuum...

Its pretty obvious now, that "space-time" is an emergent from the QV.

The continuity of "stuff" in the vacuum is what allows distance and time to 
be defined in locations where no apparent objects exist.

>
>> So today it is basically only crackpots who take the ether concept 
>> seriously.

So says those that know a little yet believe they know a lot. They attempt 
to take the high ground but don't now what's in  the cellar they are 
standing on

Its crackpots that believe in magic that can hold that physical properties 
such such the SOL can exist in a truly empty space, with no clocks or rulers 
to measure such a c.

Its astounding that this emperor's new cloths idea has so infected physics. 
Yeah... in vacuum the SOL can be defined and is c.

The reality is:

Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory)

Professor Tong (Cambridge)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg


Time into video 0:31 :

"...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of 
nature...?"

Time into video 19:30 :

"... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call 
the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe… and 
the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into 
little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these 
bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the same 
is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."

To be clear then.... photons are a disturbance in a 
field...er...ether...according to mainstream Quantum Field Theorists .

Thus QFT is an ether in denial. Physicist are just too $hit scared to use 
the name.

Lorentz just got the details wrong...

>>
>>

>To quote Einstein himself:

>https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity

>" [24] 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. "

A peer reviewed General Ether Theory already exists:

https://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/

I don't claim that its correct, but it seems to work.

Kevin Aylward
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597824

Aether Regaind wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You might want to disguise your agenda a little bit better next time.

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Trolidan7 wrote:
>>> On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote:
>>>> John-Erik Persson wrote:
>>>>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So,
>>>>> you cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply
>>>>> no existence.
>>>>
>>>> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You
>>>> neither had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay?
>>>
>>> I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established
>>> 'ether' properties.
>> 
>> There were: The ether was introduced(?) by Maxwell as luminiferous
>> (light-carrying), required as a medium for electromagnetic waves.  At
>> first, the ether was assumed to be completely dragged along by motion. 
>> But stellar aberration contradicted that.  Then the Fizeau experiment
>> seemed to confirm Fresnel’s hypothesis that the ether would be partially
>> dragged along. However, the null result of the Michelson–Morley
>> experiment which indicated that if there is an ether it would be
>> motionless, contradicted both previous observations.  Then Lorentz and
>> Poincaré came up with length contraction and time dilation to fix that.
>
> Consider the following aether model of the solar system:
> 
> The aether in the *common* orbital/ecliptic plane of the planets

There is no such thing.  The invariable plane is an artificial construction 
to define the International Celestial Reference Frame, an astronomical 
coordinate system that is also used for Very Large Baseline Interferometry.  

The actual orbital planes of the planets, and certainly those of minor 
planets such as Pluto, are inclined to that plane:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane>

> is in motion as in a VORTEX.

  “The only trouble with it is that it doesn’t work.”

    –Richard Feynman in <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
     refuting a similar "theory"

> The Earth and the other planets are stationary w.r.t this local vortically
> moving aether.

As the orbital planes of the planets are actually inclined relative to each 
other (and to the invariable plane), and so are the orbits of the moons 
relative to the orbital planes of the planets, this model does not work.

And there is no reason for the terrestrial orbital plane to be in any way 
special.  Nature is not obliged to subscribe to such human arrogance.  Or, 
IOW:

  “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*.”
    – Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
> Such a model is consistent with:
> 
> 1) Stellar aberration

It is not.  There are a gazillon more stars above and below the ecliptic, or 
the invariable plane, than there are within it (when it is extended to 
infinity).  Still stellar aberration is observed for *all* of them, and it 
does not if you are observing from the ground, from the terrestrial orbit, 
or from L₁ or L₂.

> 2) Michelson–Morley

Maybe.  But Michelson–Morley contradicts the Fizeau experiment, and a proper 
theory has to explain *all* observations.

> 3) Long persistence of planetary orbits

One has nothing to do with the other, and in fact orbits are not persistent 
at all.  Just look at the periohelion precession of Mercury’s orbit.  
(Famously first explained by Einstein, using general relativity.)
 
>> But Einstein showed that all of those observations can be explained, and
>> Lorentz’/Poincaré’s equations can be derived, without assuming an ether.
>> And then he showed that other phenomena can be explained that way, too.
>> 
>> So today it is basically only crackpots who take the ether concept
>> seriously.
> 
> To quote Einstein himself:
> 
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
> 
> " [24] 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. "

The last sentence is key; it means that this new aether that he is 
suggesting there is NOT any of the pre-relativistic aethers (which were 
either falsified or shown to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis):

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#General_relativity>

| Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field 
| within general relativity, but the only similarity of this relativistic 
| aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of 
| physical properties in space, which can be identified through geodesics. 
| As historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new 
| aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. As 
| Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be 
| attributed to that new aether. Einstein's use of the word "aether" found 
| little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the 
| continuing development of modern physics.[10][11]


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597841

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 9:10:22 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Aether Regaind wrote: 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> You might want to disguise your agenda a little bit better next time.
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: 
> >> Trolidan7 wrote: 
> >>> On 12/9/22 8:22 AM, Hanoi Cuocco wrote: 
> >>>> John-Erik Persson wrote: 
> >>>>> Richard No ether means no ether properties, means no evidences. So, 
> >>>>> you cannot disprove existence of ether. Failure to see does not imply 
> >>>>> no existence. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> that's exactly what is implied, in physics. Fucking stoopid. You 
> >>>> neither had your anus inside a physics laboratory. Are you gay? 
> >>> 
> >>> I am not sure if there were ever any clearly established 
> >>> 'ether' properties. 
> >> 
> >> There were: The ether was introduced(?) by Maxwell as luminiferous
> >> (light-carrying), required as a medium for electromagnetic waves. At
> >> first, the ether was assumed to be completely dragged along by motion. 
> >> But stellar aberration contradicted that. Then the Fizeau experiment 
> >> seemed to confirm Fresnel’s hypothesis that the ether would be partially 
> >> dragged along. However, the null result of the Michelson–Morley 
> >> experiment which indicated that if there is an ether it would be 
> >> motionless, contradicted both previous observations. Then Lorentz and 
> >> Poincaré came up with length contraction and time dilation to fix that. 
> > 
> > Consider the following aether model of the solar system: 
> > 
> > The aether in the *common* orbital/ecliptic plane of the planets
> There is no such thing. The invariable plane is an artificial construction 
> to define the International Celestial Reference Frame, an astronomical 
> coordinate system that is also used for Very Large Baseline Interferometry. 
> 
> The actual orbital planes of the planets, and certainly those of minor 
> planets such as Pluto, are inclined to that plane: 
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane>
> > is in motion as in a VORTEX.
> “The only trouble with it is that it doesn’t work.” 
> 
> –Richard Feynman in <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2> 
> refuting a similar "theory"
> > The Earth and the other planets are stationary w.r.t this local vortically 
> > moving aether.
> As the orbital planes of the planets are actually inclined relative to each 
> other (and to the invariable plane), and so are the orbits of the moons 
> relative to the orbital planes of the planets, this model does not work. 
> 
> And there is no reason for the terrestrial orbital plane to be in any way 
> special. Nature is not obliged to subscribe to such human arrogance. Or, 
> IOW: 
> 
> “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to *you*.” 
> – Neil deGrasse Tyson
> > Such a model is consistent with: 
> > 
> > 1) Stellar aberration
> It is not. There are a gazillon more stars above and below the ecliptic, or 
> the invariable plane, than there are within it (when it is extended to 
> infinity). Still stellar aberration is observed for *all* of them, and it 
> does not if you are observing from the ground, from the terrestrial orbit, 
> or from L₁ or L₂. 
> 
> > 2) Michelson–Morley 
> 
> Maybe. But Michelson–Morley contradicts the Fizeau experiment, and a proper 
> theory has to explain *all* observations.
> > 3) Long persistence of planetary orbits
> One has nothing to do with the other, and in fact orbits are not persistent 
> at all. Just look at the periohelion precession of Mercury’s orbit. 
> (Famously first explained by Einstein, using general relativity.)
> >> But Einstein showed that all of those observations can be explained, and 
> >> Lorentz’/Poincaré’s equations can be derived, without assuming an ether. 
> >> And then he showed that other phenomena can be explained that way, too. 
> >> 
> >> So today it is basically only crackpots who take the ether concept 
> >> seriously. 
> > 
> > To quote Einstein himself: 
> > 
> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity 
> > 
> > " [24] 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. "
> The last sentence is key; it means that this new aether that he is 
> suggesting there is NOT any of the pre-relativistic aethers (which were 
> either falsified or shown to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis): 
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#General_relativity> 
> 
> | Albert Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field 
> | within general relativity, but the only similarity of this relativistic 
> | aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of 
> | physical properties in space, which can be identified through geodesics. 
> | As historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new 
> | aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. As 
> | Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be 
> | attributed to that new aether. Einstein's use of the word "aether" found 
> | little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the 
> | continuing development of modern physics.[10][11] 
> 
> 
> PointedEars 
> -- 
> Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes? 
> A: To a prism. 
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

Long persistence of orbits.
No, since gravity emerges inside matter due to effects by the ether, this explains no aberration in gravity.
MMX.
No, since collimators define, and telescopes detect, flat wave fronts with constant orientations there is no effect in the reference arm. And, in the measuring arm, an effect (2 times the Lorentz transform) produced by ether effect in 2 anti-parallel motions in light is compensated by the 2 anti-parallel motions in forces controlling atomic separations in a crystal. So MMX cannot prove anything.
John-Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597873

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Aether Regaind wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You might want to disguise your agenda a little bit better next time.
>

The ᴁther was LOST/FORGOTTEN due to Einstein's temptation for GLORY*,
FORSAKING REAL UNDERSTANDING. LONG will be the way, and HARD, but
through DILIGENCE and PERSISTENCE, the ᴁther will be REGAINED/RESTORED.

[*]
https://www.herbblockfoundation.org/sites/default/files/2016-10/4.19.1955albert_einstein_lived_here.jpg

>> The aether in the *common* orbital/ecliptic plane of the planets
>
> There is no such thing.  The invariable plane is an artificial
construction
> to define the International Celestial Reference Frame, an astronomical
> coordinate system that is also used for Very Large Baseline
Interferometry.
>
> The actual orbital planes of the planets, and certainly those of minor
> planets such as Pluto, are inclined to that plane:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane>

Except for ☿ and ♇ all the other planetary orbital planes are within
3.4° of either the invariable plane or the ecliptic plane. It is
deceitful to say there is no such thing. One of the leading solar-system
formation theories is that the planets coalesced from a disc of dust
spinning around the sun, as in a VORTEX. The whole of the Milky Way
galaxy spins in such a vortical manner. The universe is full of spinning
vortices, a.k.a galaxies!

>> is in motion as in a VORTEX.
>
>   “The only trouble with it is that it doesn’t work.”
>
>     –Richard Feynman in
<https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2>
>      refuting a similar "theory"
>

You need to pay attention more closely. What Feynman refers to is the
well known 'Le Sage model of gravitation'. For the present, all I will
say is that it is not the only aether based model of gravity.

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

BTW, thanks for the link. I had not seen this ("Character of Physical
Law" talk) before and it was very informative.

>> Such a model is consistent with:
>>
>> 1) Stellar aberration
>
> It is not.  There are a gazillon more stars above and below the
ecliptic, or
> the invariable plane, than there are within it (when it is extended to
> infinity).  Still stellar aberration is observed for *all* of them,
and it
> does not if you are observing from the ground, from the terrestrial
orbit,
> or from L₁ or L₂.
>

Are you missing a word above? Should it be:
"Still stellar aberration is observed for *all* of them, and it does not
_VARY_ if you are observing from the ground, from the terrestrial orbit,
or from L₁ or L₂."

>>> So today it is basically only crackpots who take the ether concept
>>> seriously.
>>
>> To quote Einstein himself:
>>
>> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
>>
>> " [24] 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. "
>
> The last sentence is key; it means that this new aether that he is
> suggesting there is NOT any of the pre-relativistic aethers (which were
> either falsified or shown to be an unfalsifiable hypothesis):
>

In that same address, Einstein also says:

" [22]  Since according to our present conceptions THE ELEMENTARY
PARTICLES OF MATTER ARE ALSO, IN THEIR ESSENCE, NOTHING ELSE THAN
CONDENSATIONS OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD, our present view of the
universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each
other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational
ether and electromagnetic field, or — as they might also be called —
space and matter."

As @Kevin Aylward points out, this is also the view of Quantum Field
Theory.

"[23] OF COURSE IT WOULD BE A GREAT ADVANCE IF WE COULD SUCCEED IN
COMPREHENDING THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AND THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD
TOGETHER AS ONE UNIFIED CONFORMATION. Then for the first time the epoch
of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a
satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would
fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of
physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry,
kinematics, and the theory of gravitation."

The above address was given in May 1920, and Einstein was working on
unifying the gravitational and electromagnetic aethers until his death
in 1955. Part of the reason he failed was because of sticking to that
last sentence:

"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. "

Note: Snipped only to reduce clutter, no other meaning intended. The
original posts can always be accessed on:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/s-Uc51gXTA8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597881

On 12/19/22 1:49 PM, Aether Regaind wrote:
> The ᴁther was LOST/FORGOTTEN due to Einstein's temptation for GLORY*,
> FORSAKING REAL UNDERSTANDING.

Nonsense. In 1905 Einstein was unknown and had just one goal: to obtain
a university professorship. For that, "glory" and "popularity" would be
a major drawback, while understanding was essential. Fortunately,
Einstein understood much more physics than you do, and was aware of the
social aspects as well (of which you seem completely ignorant). Einstein
succeeded in reaching his goal; it is highly unlikely that you will
succeed in your crusade.

> the ᴁther will be REGAINED/RESTORED.

Only when you explain IN DETAIL how the ᴁther can do A LOT more than
simply support light as mechanistic waves, including electric and
magnetic fields, and most importantly: support quantum phenomena and
other elementary particles.

> [... considerable nonsense ignored]

Ancient quotations and misinterpreting physicists' words will not
further your cause. Indeed, the ONLY thing that can further acceptance
of an ᴁther is to explain IN DETAIL how it supports quantum phenomena
and other elementary particles.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597886

On 12/19/2022 3:17 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/19/22 1:49 PM, Aether Regaind wrote:
>> The ᴁther was LOST/FORGOTTEN due to Einstein's temptation for GLORY*,
>> FORSAKING REAL UNDERSTANDING.
> 
> Nonsense. In 1905 Einstein was unknown and had just one goal: to obtain
> a university professorship. For that, "glory" and "popularity" would be
> a major drawback, while understanding was essential. Fortunately,
> Einstein understood much more physics than you do, and was aware of the
> social aspects as well (of which you seem completely ignorant). Einstein
> succeeded in reaching his goal; it is highly unlikely that you will
> succeed in your crusade.
> 
>> the ᴁther will be REGAINED/RESTORED.
> 
> Only when you explain IN DETAIL how the ᴁther can do A LOT more than
> simply support light as mechanistic waves, including electric and
> magnetic fields, and most importantly: support quantum phenomena and
> other elementary particles.
> 
>> [... considerable nonsense ignored]
> 
> Ancient quotations and misinterpreting physicists' words will not
> further your cause. Indeed, the ONLY thing that can further acceptance
> of an ᴁther is to explain IN DETAIL how it supports quantum phenomena
> and other elementary particles.

Please consider the possibility that current physics is at a dead end
so far as the currently accepted models are concerned. This is only a
suggestion as I have nothing of substance to offer as a replacement. I
think it likely that creditworthy ᴁther studies will not provide support
for existing models but completely new directions will probably result.

It seems to me that Einstein recognized his limits when he presented his
paper/speech in 1920 on the topic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597907

On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 22:17:28 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/19/22 1:49 PM, Aether Regaind wrote: 
> > The ᴁther was LOST/FORGOTTEN due to Einstein's temptation for GLORY*, 
> > FORSAKING REAL UNDERSTANDING.
> Nonsense. In 1905 Einstein was unknown and had just one goal: to obtain 
> a university professorship. For that, "glory" and "popularity" would be 
> a major drawback, while understanding was essential. Fortunately, 
> Einstein understood much more physics than you do, and

And was to dumb to deal with its basic definitions,
so nothing was preventing him to announce The
Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598020

"Tom Roberts"  wrote in message 
news:GxycnbQayed8ST3-nZ2dnZfqlJ9h4p2d@giganews.com...

On 12/19/22 1:49 PM, Aether Regaind wrote:
> The ᴁther was LOST/FORGOTTEN due to Einstein's temptation for GLORY*,
> FORSAKING REAL UNDERSTANDING.



>> the ᴁther will be REGAINED/RESTORED.

>Only when you explain IN DETAIL how the ᴁther can do A LOT more than
>simply support light as mechanistic waves, including electric and
>magnetic fields, and most importantly: support quantum phenomena and
>other elementary particles.

> [... considerable nonsense ignored]

>Ancient quotations and misinterpreting physicists' words will not
>further your cause. Indeed, the ONLY thing that can further acceptance
>of an ᴁther is to explain IN DETAIL how it supports quantum phenomena
>and other elementary particles.

As explained. Its trivially obvious that QFT is an Aether theory, as I also 
noted, Physicists are just too shit scared to use the word.

You need to move on from "Aether" means cogs, wheels and pulleys. Sure, 
Lorentz was wrong about the details, he didn't know about massless fields".

Royal Institute Lecture on YouTube on QFT (Quantum Field Theory)

Professor Tong (Cambridge)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg


Time into video 0:31 :

"...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building blocks of
nature...?"

Time into video 19:30 :

"... so there is spread something throughout this room, something we call
the electron field… it’s like a fluid that fills… the entire universe… and
the ripples of this electron fluid… the waves of this fluid get tied into
little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum mechanics... and these
bundles of energy are what we call the particle the electron....and the same
is true for every kind of particle in the universe..."

The importance of understanding why Quantum Ethers exists, is because it 
explains "space-time" as an emergent phenomena from *physically* *real* 
processes., that is quantum fields. The alternative is magic.

The SR model is clearly physically wrong. SR holds that in truly empty 
space, the velocity of light has physical meaning, despite no rulers and 
clocks existing to verify such a claim. It attributes physical character to 
"space-time" of a truly empty universe and thus claims a Lorentz metric. 
Truly empty space cannot have an character at all. This is trivially 
obvious.

Einstein conned the stupid people that the Emperors new clothes can keep 
people *physically* warm.

Laws of physics can only be the result of interactions between real physical 
objects. Straight lines, such as a *real* *physical* route from A to B 
cannot exist without objects all along the y=mx+c to define position. 
Virtual geometric diagram are not physical reality. Again, truly trivial 
obvious.

Clocks are not time. They measure time.

SR holds that "time", that is "space-time" exists independently of clocks, 
such that clocks can measure more or less of it dependant on the inertial 
motion of the clock (path through space-time)

Without distinguishing between clocks and time, its impossible to claim that 
the observed measured differences in clocks are not the result of clocks 
physically slowing down due to an interaction in a background field.

Without distinguishing an invariant, that is, "space-time", its impossible 
to claim that clocks experience more or less of it.

This is the confusion on the "time is not absolute" position. Something else 
has to be absolute with which to measure such non-absolute time.

The flaw in the SR claims is that it is impossible to know what "time" is 
from "readings of clocks".

SR necessarily requires this "space-time" to physical exist so that clocks 
can travel through it at different rates, that is time travel into the 
future. This is the block universe. This is not a philosophical viewpoints, 
its simply impossible to hold the SR viewpoint of clocks without the "block 
universe", everything exists at once scenery.  The deterministic nature of 
the block universe, contradicts QM.


An anthropic argument as to why the *measured* speed of light c must, be an 
invariant, and hence why the LT itself must be correct, is noted here:

The structure of atoms are determined by the laws of physics. The laws of 
physic contain numerous constants, such that these constants form part of 
the laws of physics. Many contain the fine structure constant, which 
contains c. c is the only “constant”, that, if it were not for Lorentz 
Invariance, would not be a constant.

These laws of physics dictate how atoms are constructed, behave and decay. 
The fine tuning problem shows that changes in these constants will have 
drastic effects on the ability of a universe, with the properties for atoms 
to remain stable, to exist.

As noted, Maxwell’,. Equations indicate that the SOL is not invariant 
(https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/html/GTMaxwellsEQ/GTMaxwellsEQ.html). 
This means that the laws of physics for atoms in relative motion would not 
be independent of inertial motion, which would mean that atoms would lose 
their fine tuning status and dismantle themselves.

Thus realistically, this universe requires a measured invariance of the SOL. 
As noted, this can be achieved by the time traveling Dr. Who SR 
interpretation of LI or by the clocks slow down, neo-Lorentzian background 
field interpretation, to wit, the Quantum Vacuum.

That is, if the only result of a change in the constants forming the laws of 
physics for atoms, was that all processes simply slowed down in a background 
field, the local observer would be none the wiser.

Its pretty clear now, to those that can throw away the indoctrination of 100 
years of Einstein's *behavioural* "model of realty is realty" twaddle, that 
light propagation, and all of its physical characteristics is due to Quantum 
Fields, not magic. This results in physical process "ageing" being a 
function of their "excitation particle bubbles motion in such a field.

The Einstein "no Ather" viewpoint it a viewpoint stick in the early 1900s. 
The results of QFT simply destroy such a view point and people need to move 
on. To wit:


Lee Smolin:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously 
for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of 
special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made 
time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there 
waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a 
logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/sr/xht/srbackground.xht
https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/sr/srbackground.html


https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598036

On 12/22/22 3:12 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Its trivially obvious that QFT is an Aether theory,

Only for a complete redefinition of the word "aether" to mean "a set of
quantum fields". Doing so is OUTRAGEOUSLY counterproductive and useless,
because it causes confusion and resolves NOTHING.

If you were honest, you would use a word like "bltzfsk" instead of
"aether", because that would eliminate the confusion of using an
existing word for something completely different and counter to its
original meaning. You use that word deliberately, for its shock value,
not as part of any physical argument -- fighting words like that do not
belong in scientific discussions.

Of course all such redefinitions are silly and completely useless --
if you want to discuss science, use its vocabulary, not made-up words of
your own that superficially look like existing words.

> [... much nonsense omitted, including an inability to recognize 
> metaphors]

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#598042

On Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 19:22:00 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/22/22 3:12 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote: 
> > Its trivially obvious that QFT is an Aether theory,
> Only for a complete redefinition of the word "aether" to mean "a set of 
> quantum fields". Doing so is OUTRAGEOUSLY counterproductive and useless, 
> because it causes confusion and resolves NOTHING. 
> 
> If you were honest, you would use a word like "bltzfsk" instead of 
> "aether", because that would eliminate the confusion of using an 
> existing word for something completely different and counter to its 
> original meaning. You use that word deliberately, for its shock value, 
> not as part of any physical argument -- fighting words like that do not 
> belong in scientific discussions. 
> 
> Of course all such redefinitions are silly and completely useless -- 

Except when they're made by your idiot guru for the
holy case of The Shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web