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

wrote:
[loads of chit he hopes will sound authentic and intimidate others into
either shutting up, or agreeing with him ... puzzled-look ]

Actually, the "Luminiferous aether" was too narrow, by its' sheer
definition; Einstein first denied it, then realized it must be replaced
with the gravitational ether and that referencing motion in relation to
gravitational ether has no meaning ... basically, if you give this any
thought at all--this ether exists apart from time and motion, and any
possible meaning of time we could attempt to ascribe to it. (time is
motion, motion is time ...)

Indeed, this is just one property/aspect of this ether which is
speculated on, the ability to jump from a point in it, to a far distant
point in it, in "no time." A "folding of space" in some theories, a
wormhole in others, etc. ...

You are an idiot, you cannot even get that right ... but, we considered
the source, you are forgiven child. :-)

Regards,
JS

wrote:
[the chit I already mentioned ... ]

And, in intuiting your next response(s), yes, when we get a good
understanding of the gravitational ether instant communications to far
distant corners of the universe will happen instantaneously (perhaps we
will finally get results from SETI! grin) This is why some are
speculating we don't have our antennas "correct" and the formulas we
design them with are lacking ...

Shortly after we figure this all out (well, years? decades?), we will
have craft which can duplicate this same phenomenon--travel to any
corner of this universe almost instantaneously. If you don't "read"
Einstein and get this out of it ... re-read him!

Need I mention Long Delay Echo? (LDE) ... what is your take on that? A
reflection from a cloaked mothership? ROFLOL

Well, I don't know what it is either, but it bears looking into ...

Regards,
JS

On Sep 19, 6:37*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

[the chit I already mentioned ... ]

And, in intuiting your next response(s), yes, when we get a good
understanding of the gravitational ether instant communications to far
distant corners of the universe will happen instantaneously (perhaps we
will finally get results from SETI! grin) *This is why some are
speculating we don't have our antennas "correct" and the formulas we
design them with are lacking ...

Shortly after we figure this all out (well, years? decades?), we will
have craft which can duplicate this same phenomenon--travel to any
corner of this universe almost instantaneously. *If you don't "read"
Einstein and get this out of it ... re-read him!

Need I mention Long Delay Echo? (LDE) ... what is your take on that? *A
reflection from a cloaked mothership? *ROFLOL

Well, I don't know what it is either, but it bears looking into ...

Regards,
JS

Oops...another senility eruption by Captain John ("moon unit") Smith.

John Smith wrote:
This is why some are
speculating we don't have our antennas "correct" and the formulas we
design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This is why some are speculating we don't have our antennas "correct"
and the formulas we design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.

Cecil:

I am just telling you what I see suggested in his papers, lectures and
talks (not to mention a whole slew of others chiming in along the way)
.... and, of course, even Einstein himself found it, almost,
unbelievable! Indeed, he made a direct comment to this (not before me
right now, will quote it later.)

But, yes, although "the how we will do this" is much like
space/structure/ether--at this point, it requires a wee-bit of faith ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This is why some are speculating we don't have our antennas "correct"
and the formulas we design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.

Cecil:

When ever I become timid, cautious and have a lack of courage in being
able to state exactly where it appears "we are being taken", or what is
possible, I think what existed before my birth and early childhood:
(indeed, I am still such a coward on these matters, I tend to stick to
what Einstein suggests!)

1) We didn't have the Maser/Laser. (Buck Rogers ray gun)

2) We hadn't been to space nor walked the Moon. (only speculated on it
in science fiction)

3) Our doctors still appeared like Witch Doctors (well, they still do, a
bit, baby steps, baby steps ...)

4) Computers were mere "toys." (a decent one would have occupied square
miles and consumed the output power of nuclear reactor)

5) The speed of sound was considered a "wall", much like the speed of
light today ...

6) [Continue this almost endless list--at will ... ]

Back then, mention any of these advances as speculations on where the
science "of the time" was about to go, you would have been laughed out
of the room--why should we expect different today? People/society just
doesn't change "that much", that quickly ...

Regards,
JS