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

Continuing quotes from Einstein:
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory
of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in
this, that the state of the former is at every place determined
by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in
neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of
differential equations,; whereas the state of the Lorentzian
ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned
by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether
of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually
into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the
functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the
causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think,
that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome
of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation."

"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 wonld 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."

So much for the ether being banished by Einstein. What is it about
Einstein's words, "the ether of the general theory of relativity",
that you do not understand?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
So much for the ether being banished by Einstein. What is it about
Einstein's words, "the ether of the general theory of relativity",
that you do not understand?

Oh please, he claims not to understand ANY of it--everything he
reads/has-read/learned/etc. claims the opposite ... :-(

The only thing left? He then claims this has all been a "cleaver ploy!"
ROFLOL

Now, let me see, what ignoramuses have I seen using this "cleaver ploy"
in the past ...

Regards,
JS

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.

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

On Sep 19, 9:27*am, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
...
So much for the ether being banished by Einstein. What is it about
Einstein's words, "the ether of the general theory of relativity",
that you do not understand?

Oh please, he claims not to understand ANY of it--everything he
reads/has-read/learned/etc. claims the opposite ... :-(

The only thing left? *He then claims this has all been a "cleaver ploy!"
* ROFLOL

Now, let me see, what ignoramuses have I seen using this "cleaver ploy"
in the past ...

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is,

Ah, but you did pretend to.

No, I speculated about space and offered my personal
opinion.

I see. Well, at the time it sounded more like you were saying "The
amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which
provide the very structure of space itself." Which seems to presume to
know what space is.

If that opinion is ever proved wrong, I
will change it.

All the while shouting demeaning epithets, and ever after claiming to
have never held the opinion in the first place. :-)

73, ac6xg

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:
[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