John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 11:28 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
...
So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether"
existed?
Well hardly since there is no such thing.
He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a
bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity?
...
See, that is why you are wrong on most points, you get the basic laws
screwed up and how do you expect anything else you are going to say to
make any sense -- IT WON'T!
"The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical
and electromagnetic events." -- Einstein (Source, Pais, "Subtle is the
Lord" p 313.)
AND --
In 1920 Albert Einstein stated [1]:
page 16: But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be
adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is
ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality
whatever. The fundamental facts of (quantum) mechanics do not
harmonize with this view.
page 23: 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
Ether is a volatile organic compound at one time used as an anaesthetic.
If you intend to push the aether theory at least get the terminology
right fer petes sake.
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.
The "ęther" described by those who hold to that view does NOT mean a
mechanical medium whose deformations correspond to electromagnetic fields,
but rather a locally preferred state of rest at each point of spacetime.
You clearly failed to grasp this major difference between classical
views of the aether as a physical substance and modern aetheric
theories that view it as an aspec of spacetime.
Try reading
EINSTEIN-ĘTHER THEORY by
CHRISTOPHER ELING , TED JACOBSON , AND DAVID MATTINGLY
From he
http://www.helical-structures.org/ei...bout_ether.htm
And:
http://www.blavatsky.net/science/ether/ether.htm
Oh please Blavatsky as a reference, who will you choose next ?
Gypsy Rose Lee perhaps.
And:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B
You need to jump off that wagon and now jump on the "hair-splitting"
wagon of what Einstein meant!
But then, that is what I like about you, YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG!
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
You aseem to be incapable of understanding
even the most basic tenets of the subject.
Special Relativity clearly shows that an aether is NOT required
and clearly states that an aether in the classic sense of a physical
medium is nonsense.
Taking fragments of writing out of context and using them as 'proof' is not
convincing.
What Einstein did was to write that a solid phase Aether "seemed" to be a
necessary
consequence" of light transmission. He then went on to demonstrate that
something
that "seemed" to be necessary actually was not.
He sums up saying "according to the General Theory of Relativity space is
endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether"
However he makes it clear this is NOT a physical medium, instead he states
"But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. "
Keith