In a lecture meant for his inauguration at the University of Leiden in
1920, Einstein remarked:

"...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."

Shortly before his lecture in Leyden in 1920 he admitted in the paper:
Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung
dargestellt:

"Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of the
ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see with
the next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It
moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium if
one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter)
as the condition thereof ".

Perhaps he was correct, you think?

JS

John Smith wrote:
In a lecture meant for his inauguration at the University of Leiden in
1920, Einstein remarked:

"...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."

Shortly before his lecture in Leyden in 1920 he admitted in the paper:
Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung
dargestellt:

"Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of the
ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see with
the next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It
moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium if
one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter)
as the condition thereof ".

Perhaps he was correct, you think?

JS

Of course, other theories and proposals exit to the unknown/"un-understood":

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

JS

John Smith wrote:
In a lecture meant for his inauguration at the University of Leiden in
1920, Einstein remarked:

Perhaps he was correct, you think?

JS

I think like this. Amateurs look, to me, like a couple of guys who
build some equipment (or buy it), hook it to a wire, and communicate
between themselves and possibly others. They keep on developing
different and sometimes better gear and they learn many uses, games and
recreation purposes for it. However, and lately, they make NO moves to
advance it, a responsibility the the mere possession of an amateur
license places on oneself...

Now, I liken the "wire" in the above to the ether. And, these amateurs
NEVER question where the wire (ether) came from, how it works, how long
it is, the characteristics of it, etc.

I think, obviously, that any "NEW" and "REAL" discoveries, developments,
technology, etc. will ONLY come from answering the question which is
implied above or, "How does the ether factor into communications? Will
a(the) manipulation(s) of the ether further radio technology, its' use,
worth, etc.?"

Now, I do think antennas are an excellent place to begin such studies
and research. They obviously, in my humble opinion, interface with the
ether! Or, if your belief in the ether is holding you back, I offer the
following as an example of hunting for it:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.k.../Detection.pdf

This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple
device to detect the ether. It uses a laser (laser level--mine cost
12.95 + tax) and a few front surface mirrors... (I am still proving the
ether to myself and undecided as to whether to have the same faith I
hold for God, for it (ether)...) I would love to come up with a way to
use RF.

Point being, DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE or SHUT UP and go about your BS
over the airwaves(vibrations of the ether really!) smile

Or, said simply, "Those who can do, those who can't fire up the rig and
rag chew."

JS

John Smith wrote:
This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple
device to detect the ether.

Consider that the galactic red shift might be caused
by the expansion of the ether and not by movement of
the galaxies.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple
device to detect the ether.

Consider that the galactic red shift might be caused
by the expansion of the ether and not by movement of
the galaxies.

Cecil:

I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!" Or, is that "Dapper
Fellow?"

Whatever... grin

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!"

Consider that the mere expansion of empty space itself
would cause a red shift possibly unrelated to the
Doppler effect.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!"

Consider that the mere expansion of empty space itself
would cause a red shift possibly unrelated to the
Doppler effect.

The passage of time will make that known beyond doubt, the universe
expands at an ever increasing (yet, rather slow increase) rate... (Or,
what color red do you like?)

What would you see as the affect causing the red shift effect?

Regards,
JS

What holds empty space together? Does the ether
cluster in gobs? Just wondering. :-)

Irv VE6BP

Cecil Moore wrote:

John Smith wrote:
I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!"

Consider that the mere expansion of empty space itself
would cause a red shift possibly unrelated to the
Doppler effect.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

--
--------------------------------------
Visit my HomePage at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv/index.html
Visit my Baby Sofia website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/index.htm
Visit my OLDTIMERS website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv5/index.htm
--------------------
Irv Finkleman,
Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Cecil Moore wrote:

John Smith wrote:

I suspect you of being a rather "Doppler Fellow!"


Consider that the mere expansion of empty space itself
would cause a red shift possibly unrelated to the
Doppler effect.


Hopefully you're not considering that we can observe objects move away
from us at apparently high speed without observing a doppler red shift
- at least in part.

73, ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:

John Smith wrote:

This page contains instructions on how to construct a cheap and simple
device to detect the ether.


Consider that the galactic red shift might be caused
by the expansion of the ether and not by movement of
the galaxies.

Oh Cecil. You disappoint me. I really thought you were smarter than this.

tom
K0TAR