wrote:
[ ... ]

You simply take up too much effort on a very small point. Read this:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm

If that doesn't do it for you, or whets your appetite, try this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_24EAAAACAAJ&dq=ether

Regards,
JS

On Sep 18, 8:20*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

[ ... ]

You simply take up too much effort on a very small point. *Read this:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm

If that doesn't do it for you, or whets your appetite, try this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_24EAAAACAAJ&dq=ether

Regards,
JS

Now I see where you are getting all this sci-fi. Finally. You mistake
a philosophical, abstract ether with the type of physical ether being
inferred in this thread, i.e. the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory. Kostro is not a scientist, he is a Philosopher of Science who
longs for the old ether concept (I would suppose to assist in his
understanding of the universe) and who claims Einstein really did
believe in a revised concept of ether after 195 or so...no way. He did
not, as a physicist. As a philosopher, for him anything was possible,
even a unified theory. But there is no ether variable or constant that
must be present in order for the relativity calculations to work. It
is the job of a philosopher to analyse these parameters, real or
imagined, and remind us that those concepts we threw over the fence
decades ago MAY still have validity. Philosophically this is true if
in your mind experiments you think there actually may be a connection
between light and an ether medium. But philosophy does not show up in
the math. Kostro correctly states that Einstein himself did not
completely dismiss this notion but that is far cry from resurrecting
another century of ether theory. Nice try Johnny boy.

wrote:

...
Now I see where you are getting all this sci-fi. Finally. You mistake
a philosophical, abstract ether with the type of physical ether being
inferred in this thread, i.e. the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory. Kostro is not a scientist, he is a Philosopher of Science who
longs for the old ether concept (I would suppose to assist in his
understanding of the universe) and who claims Einstein really did
believe in a revised concept of ether after 195 or so...no way. He did
not, as a physicist. As a philosopher, for him anything was possible,
even a unified theory. But there is no ether variable or constant that
must be present in order for the relativity calculations to work. It
is the job of a philosopher to analyse these parameters, real or
imagined, and remind us that those concepts we threw over the fence
decades ago MAY still have validity. Philosophically this is true if
in your mind experiments you think there actually may be a connection
between light and an ether medium. But philosophy does not show up in
the math. Kostro correctly states that Einstein himself did not
completely dismiss this notion but that is far cry from resurrecting
another century of ether theory. Nice try Johnny boy.

If there was ever a doubt you were an idiot (and I did attempt to give
you the benefit of the doubt), you have completely dispelled such doubt
there ... sad, really sad ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:
Now I see where you are getting all this sci-fi. Finally. You mistake
a philosophical, abstract ether with the type of physical ether being
inferred in this thread, i.e. the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory.

Sorry, you are mistaken. Here's a quote of what Einstein said:
"The special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny
the aether. We may assume the existence of an ether, only we
must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, ..."

That's what modern quantum physicists have done. No
"state of motion" is ascribed to the particles winking
in and out of existence in the quantum soup of space.

Also quoting "The History of Modern Science":

"Einstein himself, in his application of relativity
principles to the gravitational theory (1915), supposed
that a gravitating body distorts nearby space, and that
these distortions determine the trajectory of a passing
ponderable body. An entity that can distort its shape,
deflect light, and propagate electric and magnetic
disturbances can be called a void only by discourtesy.
More recently, quantum electrodynamics has filled the
void with a vacuum that undergoes energy fluctuations
and acts as a theater for the creation and annihilation
of virtual particles."

If the void was absolutely empty, there would be nothing
there that could be distorted by gravity. Yet we know that
the void is indeed distorted by gravity. Ergo, the void
is NOT empty in the absolute sense of the word.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
If the void was absolutely empty, there would be nothing
there that could be distorted by gravity. Yet we know that
the void is indeed distorted by gravity. Ergo, the void
is NOT empty in the absolute sense of the word.

Yeah, exactly!

Or, to reword:

For all this time, what have these idiots been thinking?; blackholes
warp, "empty", nothing? LOL

Regards,
JS

On Sep 19, 9:00*am, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
...
If the void was absolutely empty, there would be nothing
there that could be distorted by gravity. Yet we know that
the void is indeed distorted by gravity. Ergo, the void
is NOT empty in the absolute sense of the word.

Yeah, exactly!

Or, to reword:

For all this time, what have these idiots been thinking?; *blackholes
warp, "empty", nothing? *LOL

Regards,
JS

me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too
me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too
me too me too me too me too me too

wrote:

...
me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too
me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too me too
me too me too me too me too me too

Yes dear, it is all about you, now run along and play with your friends;
and, don't bother the adults ... (Said in a very motherly voice) ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

wrote:
... the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory.

Please correct your incorrect concepts.

Continuing the quote from Einstein: "The special theory
of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist
of particles that can be tracked through time, but the
hypothesis of the ether in itself is not in conflict with
the special theory of relativity."

http://www.nd.edu/~dhoward1/Revisiti...20Dialogue.pdf
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 19, 8:59*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
... the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory.

Please correct your incorrect concepts.

Continuing the quote from Einstein: "The special theory
of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist
of particles that can be tracked through time, but the
hypothesis of the ether in itself is not in conflict with
the special theory of relativity."

http://www.nd.edu/~dhoward1/Revisiti...-Bohr%20Dialog...
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

No correction needed. This ether, i.e. the one which in your words
which the special theory of relativity forbids us to assume that it
consists of particles that can be tracked through time, is forbidden
by relativity. This is obviously the ether that was effectively
"banished" when Special Relativity came out in 1905 due to time
dilation effects when applying the Lorentz transformation. That was
not to say that another type of ether could not exist. I was very very
precise about that in my post. I know that Einstein later on did not
try to dispute that a different type of ether could exist. My point
was that Einstein himself did NOT hypothesize, postulate or theorize
that such an ether DID exist. Kostro seems to think Einstein did
theorize a new ether and that is wrong. That is where you and Jimminy
Cricket Smith are going off track. Suggest you re-read it.

wrote:
My point
was that Einstein himself did NOT hypothesize, postulate or theorize
that such an ether DID exist.

That's incorrect. I've added a quote from Einstein
himself to my tag line below.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein