| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Einstein did not prove or disprove or advocate an ether theory. He did
dispel ether with any mechanical characteristics, which is what Cecil was talking about (at least he implied with his reference from an Einstein speec) and what I also have said before but hel did not recognize. From Cecil's earlier reference the following paragraph (from a speech long after 1905 by A. Einstein) is found: "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether (but) only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must *by abstraction* (dfinn emphasis) take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity." A key word is "abstraction". That is what the philosopher Kostro does not understand. Johnny Smith, in plain English this whole exercise means that Einstein reflected that forces (in this case gravitational) can be considered to act on space, primarily. The force's effect on mass would then be a secondary condition that occurs due to the force's distortion of space. It is a rather cool way of looking at things...it is an acceptable way of conceptualizing the universe. Looking at space in such a way allows us to consider that "absolute empty" space must be "something" because forces act on it. Light follows space. Space directs the transport of light in a way that is fully dependent on the forces acting on space. The something can be referred to as a type of ether which directs the the transport of light. But this ether is an abstraction, depending upon whether you consider space or mass to be the "primary" entity upon which the forces act. Now Johnny, I really "get" the additional things that you are saying (they are things that have no relationship to this concept). You are calling your ether something that is material, which Einstein definitely ruled out in the Special Theory in 1905. You drag out the well-known hypothesess about the exotic matter stuff, with particles popping in and out of physical form in space-time and neutinos or whatever and call the physical matter (or perhaps exotic matter) "the ether". Even though Einstein ruled that out material ether in 1905, let us bring back the material ether once again for nostalgic purposes. We then find that these exotic/physical matter alternations do not occupy all of space all of the time. This means some parts of space truly are absolutely "empty" some of the time. What is there to propagate your light waves at those points in space- time when the material ether is not there and the space is absolutely empty? hmmmm...and to add insult to injury, Cecil is faced with the prospect that at some coordinates in space, some of the time, there exists "nothing" some of the time. I agree with Einstein's *abstract* ether in exactly the same way that Einstein does: only when you consider space the primary. But no one says I must take space as the primary; to me it is still more obvious that matter should be the primary, where no ether is required or indicated. |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
|
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
|
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
On Sep 19, 9:13*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote: [ ... ] And, in conclusion ... plonk ... thread plonk ... ... good luck ... bye ... JS Thanks Johnny, that's what I wanted. You're number 1 @ @ @@@@ |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
John Smith wrote:
You have given idiot new meaning; you have take in word idiot to new heights, and you have not stopped there. There has yet to be a name given to the gobble-de-gook you spew. e.g. 1. Transmission line currents are common-mode. 2. Richard Feynman was not a quantum physicist. 3. Ether is not required for propagation of light waves. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: You have given idiot new meaning; you have take in word idiot to new heights, and you have not stopped there. There has yet to be a name given to the gobble-de-gook you spew. e.g. 1. Transmission line currents are common-mode. 2. Richard Feynman was not a quantum physicist. 3. Ether is not required for propagation of light waves. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein ------------- All of this chatter is really a contest to see who will lose their self control and scream, "IT'S AETHER, DAMN IT - NOT ETHER!!!". But I'm not gonna fall for that. Nosiree!!! G Ed, NM2K |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Ed Cregger wrote:
All of this chatter is really a contest to see who will lose their self control and scream, "IT'S AETHER, DAMN IT - NOT ETHER!!!". Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein In most of science, God is unthinkable. But then, God said he won't do tricks for non-believers. "The fool in his heart says there is no God" I can't conceive of God being a medium, but perhaps he is all that and much more. There is no "nothingness" Philosophically. Only degrees of scarcity of something that we perceive or expect to be there. Space is predominantly empty of matter but there is some from time to time. Perhaps the stars, planets and other phenomenon are there to keep the space clean. We don't fully know what we don't perceive (damn little enough what we DO perceive) . "Ether" is a supposed medium that facilitates an operational paradigm. Bottom line is: Not all things must be theoretically proven to be practically utilized. The fact that a theory is practically utilized in a given application, does not infer that theory is infallible. For instance, in the application that at any given instant we are oriented with respect to the tangent of the Earth's surface. So that for the case that we are instantaneously at one point on the Earth, it doesn't matter if the Earth is flat, round, oblong or Spherical, even though it has been proven otherwise. Likewise, to think that an experiment that uses a particular theory and is successful will fully prove that theory over another yet to come is foolish. So, conclusions based on application of far reaching theories should be held at arms length that we might maintain our objectivity. After all, Einstein and Newton both died before they could achieve a unified theory of the universe. Nor do I expect those still living will either. For now, none of them have been proved infallible. "FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was conceptual place so an antenna with a known potential at it's terminals could be evaluated without ground effects. Is there truly a difference for our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in reasonably dry air? |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein In most of science, God is unthinkable. But then, God said he won't do tricks for non-believers. "The fool in his heart says there is no God" I can't conceive of God being a medium, but perhaps he is all that and much more. There is no "nothingness" Philosophically. Only degrees of scarcity of something that we perceive or expect to be there. Space is predominantly empty of matter but there is some from time to time. Perhaps the stars, planets and other phenomenon are there to keep the space clean. We don't fully know what we don't perceive (damn little enough what we DO perceive) . "Ether" is a supposed medium that facilitates an operational paradigm. Bottom line is: Not all things must be theoretically proven to be practically utilized. The fact that a theory is practically utilized in a given application, does not infer that theory is infallible. For instance, in the application that at any given instant we are oriented with respect to the tangent of the Earth's surface. So that for the case that we are instantaneously at one point on the Earth, it doesn't matter if the Earth is flat, round, oblong or Spherical, even though it has been proven otherwise. Likewise, to think that an experiment that uses a particular theory and is successful will fully prove that theory over another yet to come is foolish. So, conclusions based on application of far reaching theories should be held at arms length that we might maintain our objectivity. After all, Einstein and Newton both died before they could achieve a unified theory of the universe. Nor do I expect those still living will either. For now, none of them have been proved infallible. "FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was conceptual place so an antenna with a known potential at it's terminals could be evaluated without ground effects. Is there truly a difference for our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in reasonably dry air? |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:38:39 GMT, "JB" wrote:
In most of science, God is unthinkable. .... "FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was conceptual place Two thoughts, both wrong. It takes very little investigation to confirm their errors. The greatest proponent of science, accuracy, and religion (thus confounding the first quote above), Lord Kelvin, offered: "Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." quoted by Rev. Professor Henslow, May 1903 Similar quotes from Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman... are legion. Is there truly a difference for our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in reasonably dry air? This appears to be set up with the word "truth" to always yield a proof of invalidity. Any standard reference reveals the difference and is so commonly available as to make one wonder how this question arrived on the doorstep. Engineering deals not with truths (however many would like to force fit that term into conversation) but with practical implementations. Is there a practical difference for our calculations? No, not unless you have a particular need for accuracy and precision. Precision is often unnecessary, especially extra digits stretching beyond the resolution of the original data supplied to give those computational results. However, accuracy is all, but it does not demand the nebulous qualifier (in itself a distraction) of "truth." You can be accurate to 1 place of resolution, or to 10. Men have been sent to the gallows without any precision or accuracy of a measurement and that verdict was weighed on the "truth" of the evidence. Men have been rescued from the gallows on the basis of parts-per-million discrepancies that proved their innocence, and "truth" was never determined, only falsity. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:38:39 GMT, "JB" wrote:
In most of science, God is unthinkable. But then, God said he won't do tricks for non-believers. "The fool in his heart says there is no God" Of course there's at least one god. How else would you explain why my designs work? Science, logic, modeling software, and common sense all suggest that my antennas will never work, yet they do. I credit their success to divine guidance and inspiration and refuse to entertain any other explanations. For those that believe, you're preaching to the choir. For those that don't believe, you're wasting your time. For those that aren't sure, a good sales pitch might work. "FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? It's a hypothetical condition, where an uncharacteristic fit of generosity causes the site owner to not charge for antenna space on his tower. I don't think that's happened since biblical times, but miracles are always possible. Around here, if someone mentions ether, they're probably running a Methylamphetamine lab. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:38:39 GMT, "JB" wrote: In most of science, God is unthinkable. ... "FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was conceptual place Two thoughts, both wrong. It takes very little investigation to confirm their errors. The greatest proponent of science, accuracy, and religion (thus confounding the first quote above), Lord Kelvin, offered: "Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." quoted by Rev. Professor Henslow, May 1903 Similar quotes from Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman... are legion. Is there truly a difference for our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in reasonably dry air? This appears to be set up with the word "truth" to always yield a proof of invalidity. Any standard reference reveals the difference and is so commonly available as to make one wonder how this question arrived on the doorstep. Engineering deals not with truths (however many would like to force fit that term into conversation) but with practical implementations. Is there a practical difference for our calculations? No, not unless you have a particular need for accuracy and precision. Precision is often unnecessary, especially extra digits stretching beyond the resolution of the original data supplied to give those computational results. However, accuracy is all, but it does not demand the nebulous qualifier (in itself a distraction) of "truth." You can be accurate to 1 place of resolution, or to 10. Men have been sent to the gallows without any precision or accuracy of a measurement and that verdict was weighed on the "truth" of the evidence. Men have been rescued from the gallows on the basis of parts-per-million discrepancies that proved their innocence, and "truth" was never determined, only falsity. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard: Well written! Yes, if one journeys in quest of an equation, a formula, a design parameter, a workable solution--all are within in grasp. If ones journeys to find "the truth", one finds himself/herself on the path of infinity ... Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:38:39 GMT, "JB" wrote: In most of science, God is unthinkable. ... "FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was conceptual place Two thoughts, both wrong. It takes very little investigation to confirm their errors. The greatest proponent of science, accuracy, and religion (thus confounding the first quote above), Lord Kelvin, offered: "Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." quoted by Rev. Professor Henslow, May 1903 Similar quotes from Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman... are legion. Is there truly a difference for our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in reasonably dry air? This appears to be set up with the word "truth" to always yield a proof of invalidity. Any standard reference reveals the difference and is so commonly available as to make one wonder how this question arrived on the doorstep. Engineering deals not with truths (however many would like to force fit that term into conversation) but with practical implementations. Is there a practical difference for our calculations? No, not unless you have a particular need for accuracy and precision. Precision is often unnecessary, especially extra digits stretching beyond the resolution of the original data supplied to give those computational results. However, accuracy is all, but it does not demand the nebulous qualifier (in itself a distraction) of "truth." You can be accurate to 1 place of resolution, or to 10. Men have been sent to the gallows without any precision or accuracy of a measurement and that verdict was weighed on the "truth" of the evidence. Men have been rescued from the gallows on the basis of parts-per-million discrepancies that proved their innocence, and "truth" was never determined, only falsity. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC The god of Oppenheimer, Feynman and the others is not the god of Sarah Palin, or even JB, whoever he is. Physicists, as a whole, love religion, but they're not very good at it. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:38:39 GMT, "JB" wrote: In most of science, God is unthinkable. But then, God said he won't do tricks for non-believers. "The fool in his heart says there is no God" Of course there's at least one god. How else would you explain why my designs work? Science, logic, modeling software, and common sense all suggest that my antennas will never work, yet they do. I credit their success to divine guidance and inspiration and refuse to entertain any other explanations. For those that believe, you're preaching to the choir. For those that don't believe, you're wasting your time. For those that aren't sure, a good sales pitch might work. "FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? It's a hypothetical condition, where an uncharacteristic fit of generosity causes the site owner to not charge for antenna space on his tower. I don't think that's happened since biblical times, but miracles are always possible. Around here, if someone mentions ether, they're probably running a Methylamphetamine lab. If there is a god, and He makes your antennas work in spite of His physical laws, it's only because he feels sorry for you. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:23:55 -0700, "Tom Donaly"
wrote: The god of Oppenheimer, Feynman and the others is not the god of Sarah Palin, or even JB, whoever he is. Physicists, as a whole, love religion, but they're not very good at it. Hi Tom, I think I will amend this statement to no particular affront to you. I would say Physicists as a whole love God, they are secure enough not to have to "prove it," and they find some unfortunate religious zealotry as a curious mix of superstition, bigotry, and vanity. Every scientist who marvels at his or her own limitations in the face of discovery is in awe of creation. Everyone who wants to pigeon hole creation into categories of truth, righteousness, and a means to define morality have been swinging hammers on the crucifix for 2000 years. They argue with a perverse ferocity like they can't sink that nail deep enough. I will return to my email with several who prefer to discuss antenna design. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Tom Donaly wrote:
... The god of Oppenheimer, Feynman and the others is not the god of Sarah Palin, or even JB, whoever he is. Physicists, as a whole, love religion, but they're not very good at it. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH The most important statement we have on the subject, from one who claimed/claims to be God went something, like: .... always has been, is, always will be ... Krist, even "he" doesn't know! So, how are those other guys even going to have a clue? LOL Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Tom Donaly wrote: ... The god of Oppenheimer, Feynman and the others is not the god of Sarah Palin, or even JB, whoever he is. Physicists, as a whole, love religion, but they're not very good at it. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH The most important statement we have on the subject, from one who claimed/claims to be God went something, like: ... always has been, is, always will be ... Krist, even "he" doesn't know! So, how are those other guys even going to have a clue? LOL Regards, JS ------------ I have no problem with acknowledging the existence of God, though I doubt that God often takes the form of George Burns. On the other hand, it is religion that I detest - as though God would speak with only one man and then depend upon that man to spread His Word accurately throughout Creation. (there - now I can remove my aluminum foil helmet...) Ed, NM2K |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Ed Cregger wrote:
... I have no problem with acknowledging the existence of God, though I doubt that God often takes the form of George Burns. On the other hand, it is religion that I detest - as though God would speak with only one man and then depend upon that man to spread His Word accurately throughout Creation. (there - now I can remove my aluminum foil helmet...) Ed, NM2K Ed: You sound like myself. However, I was raised catholic and was too ugly for any priest to want to molest; I was always checking out the nuns anyway, so you can imagine how desperate I was! But then, that is all a story for another day ... chuckle However, like so many, I jumped on evolution as soon as I found out "it was the intellectual thing to do." However, you know where that road goes--pursued long enough, it is a large circle which leaves you with the possibility of a supreme being or race (Gods and Angels? ... well, what can I say, they'd look like "Gods" to us!) Indeed, evolution makes one take a larger "leap of faith" than alternatives--indeed, IMHO it is just another "religion" to replace another ... but then, that is all a story for another day, also ... My burning questions: 1) Did God build an ether to be exploited? (and it sure does look like it!) 2) And, if so, what type of antenna to do this would be required? (and, firstly, is there any phenomenon occurring which would indicate an area to explore in pursuit of this/these end(s)?) Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:33:40 -0700, John Smith
wrote: 1) Did God build an ether to be exploited? (and it sure does look like it!) If the radio gods had meant for man to understand how such things work, he wouldn't have made it so damn complicated. 2) And, if so, what type of antenna to do this would be required? (and, firstly, is there any phenomenon occurring which would indicate an area to explore in pursuit of this/these end(s)?) Isotropic antenna. Works equally lousy in all directions for hearing the big bang background hiss (the voice of creation). It's also non-denominational, non-polarized, and non-existent. It can't be seen, found, built, or purchased. Think of it as a miraculous antenna that only the gods can appreciate and use. As usual, man has attempted to mimic the gods by attempting to build an isotropic radiator. It's close, but no miracle antenna. http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/isotropic/index.html Argh. The .NEC files have disappeared again. I'll fix (after I'm done rebuilding an air compressor). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"But by 1920, Einstein had reintroduced a physical ether as a necessary condition for the general theory of relativity to be valid." Recall the high school physics experiment of a clock ticking inside a bell jar. The air is then pumped out. When the air is nearly all gone, the clock ticks become nearly inaudible but you can still clearly see the clock. If ether had been inside the jar it would have been evacuated too and the EM lightwave would have lacked a medium, making sight of the clock disappear along with its sound. It seems likely to me that this experiment indicates that no medium is required for transmission of light despite the need of a medium to transport sound. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote: "But by 1920, Einstein had reintroduced a physical ether as a necessary condition for the general theory of relativity to be valid." Recall the high school physics experiment of a clock ticking inside a bell jar. The air is then pumped out. When the air is nearly all gone, the clock ticks become nearly inaudible but you can still clearly see the clock. If ether had been inside the jar it would have been evacuated too and the EM lightwave would have lacked a medium, making sight of the clock disappear along with its sound. It seems likely to me that this experiment indicates that no medium is required for transmission of light despite the need of a medium to transport sound. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Ever see a wire bucket that you carry golf balls in, to the driving range? Now, it works wonderfully on the golf balls, attempt filling it with water and you find it leaks! Same thing with that bell jar. You simply can't pump the ether out ... Indeed, the bell jar, being made of the large molecules of our matter would appear as a very large screen, or even like a layer of gravel to a liquid/gas, to the quantum-structure-nature of ether ... Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Richard Harrison wrote:
It seems likely to me that this experiment indicates that no medium is required for transmission of light despite the need of a medium to transport sound. If the vacuum pump was evacuating ether along with air molecules, the clock would also be evacuated. An opaque solid is a medium that will pass sound but not light. A vacuum is a medium that will pass light but not sound. One cannot evacuate ether using a vacuum pump. In that evacuated space in the bottle, two conducting plates will be pushed together although connected to nothing. What does the pushing if not something in the vacuum medium? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
John Smith wrote:
Indeed, the bell jar, being made of the large molecules of our matter would appear as a very large screen, or even like a layer of gravel to a liquid/gas, to the quantum-structure-nature of ether ... Consider that the ether may be made out of exotic dark matter capable of occupying the same space as the glass in the jar, indeed providing the very structure that allows the glass to exist in the form that we perceive. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: Indeed, the bell jar, being made of the large molecules of our matter would appear as a very large screen, or even like a layer of gravel to a liquid/gas, to the quantum-structure-nature of ether ... Consider that the ether may be made out of exotic dark matter capable of occupying the same space as the glass in the jar, indeed providing the very structure that allows the glass to exist in the form that we perceive. Could be, but can be explained without "dark matter" ... Lead is a very dense material, we use it as shielding against atomic particles. Take a chunk in your hand and contemplate all those molecules of lead you are holding. Then realize if that block of lead were enlarged to scale, to where an atom of that lead were the size of an orange, and you are standing next to one atom--the next closest atom would be about the length of a football field away. This leaves plenty of room for quantum material to pass though easier than wind passes though a chain-link fence ... Actually, I am far too conservative in this example ... this: "If a drop of water were enlarged to the size of the earth, each atom in it would be about the size of an orange. Yet most of an atom is empty space through which the electrons whirl. The nucleus itself occupies only one million-billionth of the atom's bulk. " From he http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...792294,00.html "Our matter", being used as a "bottle" for ether is a "SERIOUS JOKE!" Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: Indeed, the bell jar, being made of the large molecules of our matter would appear as a very large screen, or even like a layer of gravel to a liquid/gas, to the quantum-structure-nature of ether ... Consider that the ether may be made out of exotic dark matter capable of occupying the same space as the glass in the jar, indeed providing the very structure that allows the glass to exist in the form that we perceive. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein Sure, Why not just spray paint the inside of the jar? Or use Houdini's black cloth. Experiments like that prove that "medium" can only tend to hinder photons. Hence photons travel best without ether. How does ether affect the velocity factor of light? Can't find my ether pump anyway, so we have do these experiments virtually. |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
JB wrote:
... How does ether affect the velocity factor of light? Can't find my ether pump anyway, so we have do these experiments virtually. Yeah, beginning there would be good, baby steps, at first ... In the same way air affects the speed of sound, it limits its speed. In some common units: 670,616,629.4 miles per hour. 983,571,056.4 feet per second (roughly one foot per nanosecond.) 186,282.397 miles per second. I think the particles of a photon pass though the ether unhindered, why? Now that is part of the whole question, isn't it ... perhaps it does really "travel" at all ... there is that "odd statement" by Einstein, motion cannot be held against the ether, for any logical observation. Ether, apparently, is a true "lossless media" in the propagation of waves ... well, that is how it appears from observation. Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
John Smith wrote:
... perhaps it does really "travel" at all ... Regards, JS Does = doesn't ... but then, you already knew that. Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
JB wrote:
Hence photons travel best without ether. Photons cannot travel at all without ether because the absence of ether means there is nothing through which to travel. Photons simply cannot travel outside of the universe into absolute nothingness. How does ether affect the velocity factor of light? The velocity factor of free space ether is 1.0. The velocity factor of absolute nothing is zero. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
John Smith wrote:
I think the particles of a photon pass though the ether unhindered, why? Without the ether a photon would certainly be "hindered". :-) How many photons have you ever known to leave the universe? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
Photons cannot travel at all without ether because
the absence of ether means there is nothing through which to travel. Photons simply cannot travel outside of the universe into absolute nothingness. How does ether affect the velocity factor of light? The velocity factor of free space ether is 1.0. The velocity factor of absolute nothing is zero. So a black cloth is somehow able to displace the Ether? |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
JB wrote:
... So a black cloth is somehow able to displace the Ether? No, the ether permeates the black cloth, much the same way as air (a gas), or water (a fluid) would ... surely you have seen these at play! There should be no "leap of faith" necessary there! .... baby step, baby steps ... Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
JB wrote:
So a black cloth is somehow able to displace the Ether? What a strange irrational conclusion. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... JB wrote: So a black cloth is somehow able to displace the Ether? What a strange irrational conclusion. Oh but if it can make the clock disappear as easily as sucking out all the ether... Gotcha. |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
JB wrote:
Oh but if it can make the clock disappear as easily as sucking out all the ether... Sorry, I don't recall saying that sucking out all the ether is even possible, much less easy. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
JB wrote:
So a black cloth is somehow able to displace the Ether? "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... What a strange irrational conclusion. JB wrote: Oh but if it can make the clock disappear as easily as sucking out all the ether... Gotcha. Man, whatever you are on, I'd try it once, in the mountains, on a weekend, but only if medical science could guarantee there wasn't permanent brain damage or flashbacks--and it wore off shortly! Maybe a twelve-step program?; have you considered that? Regards, JS |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
"John Smith" wrote in message ... JB wrote: So a black cloth is somehow able to displace the Ether? "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... What a strange irrational conclusion. JB wrote: Oh but if it can make the clock disappear as easily as sucking out all the ether... Gotcha. Man, whatever you are on, I'd try it once, in the mountains, on a weekend, but only if medical science could guarantee there wasn't permanent brain damage or flashbacks--and it wore off shortly! Maybe a twelve-step program?; have you considered that? Regards, JS Looking for substance? |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
On Sep 22, 7:20*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: Indeed, the bell jar, being made of the large molecules of our matter would appear as a very large screen, or even like a layer of gravel to a liquid/gas, to the quantum-structure-nature of ether ... Consider that the ether may be made out of exotic dark matter capable of occupying the same space as the glass in the jar, indeed providing the very structure that allows the glass to exist in the form that we perceive. It is possible to consider that as a possible explanation provided that the hypothesis of exotic dark matter can ever be shown to exist physically, which it can't. It can be used hypothetcally as a possible explanation for the alleged expansion of the universe, which originates from observations using our Hubble peep hole, from which can see a only tiny portion of the total volume of the universe, backwards in time. For that hypothesis to be true, of course we must verify that alleged exotic matter, which cannot be observed, has a negative gravitational force relative to physical mass, something not intuitively obvious; this Hubble observation is where the advocates of exotic matter get their most support. And here we are putting the cart one light year ahead of the horse by considering that it is, or may be, the so called ether for light. Other plausible hypotheses such as an alternation of expansion and contraction cycles, possibly as a damped waceform, do not depend on the abstraction of exotic matter at all. |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
On Sep 22, 10:18*am, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith wrote: Indeed, the bell jar, being made of the large molecules of our matter would appear as a very large screen, or even like a layer of gravel to a liquid/gas, to the quantum-structure-nature of ether ... Consider that the ether may be made out of exotic dark matter capable of occupying the same space as the glass in the jar, indeed providing the very structure that allows the glass to exist in the form that we perceive. Could be, but can be explained without "dark matter" ... Lead is a very dense material, we use it as shielding against atomic particles. *Take a chunk in your hand and contemplate all those molecules of lead you are holding. *Then realize if that block of lead were enlarged to scale, to where an atom of that lead were the size of an orange, and you are standing next to one atom--the next closest atom would be about the length of a football field away. *This leaves plenty of room for quantum material to pass though easier than wind passes though a chain-link fence ... Actually, I am far too conservative in this example ... this: "If a drop of water were enlarged to the size of the earth, each atom in it would be about the size of an orange. Yet most of an atom is empty space through which the electrons whirl. The nucleus itself occupies only one million-billionth of the atom's bulk. " *From he http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...792294,00.html "Our matter", being used as a "bottle" for ether is a "SERIOUS JOKE!" Regards, JS It is so encouraging to note that our technical gurus gain their scientific basis from the science writers at time.com. Wikipedia too ;-) |
Clarifying Space, "Ether" and Nothingness
On Sep 22, 1:36*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: I think the particles of a photon pass though the ether unhindered, why? Without the ether a photon would certainly be "hindered". :-) How many photons have you ever known to leave the universe? That would be the total sum of all photons that have ever passed beyond the event horizons of all black holes in the universe. That might turn out to be quite a few photons. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com