John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 9:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Space does not bend.



Einstein disagreed.



Really?


Really Really - and it was proved by Walter Sydney Adams in 1925
and in the Pound-Rebka experiment of 1959.


So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether" existed?


Well hardly since there is no such thing.

He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a bowling
ball, and subject to the forces of gravity?


No that is 3 dimensional thinking. spacetime is distorted by a sufficiently
large mass. Gravity is an effect of that distortion not the cause.
The behaviour we ascribe to the force of gravity is actually the result
of inertial motion within the four dimensional curved geometry of spacetime.

You are claiming lines of space (ether) penetrate through the earth as
perfectly straight lines?


Thats just silly

Let's see the sources which cause you to reach that/those
conclusion(s?)
Regards,
JS

You could start with his 1911 paper

"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light".

Keith

On Jun 2, 2:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:

...
our ancient TV Tubes work with a bended electrical arc Beam in
vacuum...
...

You are going to have to look to Einstein to even get a "sense" and a
"feel" about the slippery stuff, ether.

It is not like any matter we know, it is completely alien to us. *We do
not possess senses to detect it, and there are no instruments, yet,
which will.

One very un-intuitive quality of ether? *It passes through your vacuum
tubes like the glass envelopes don't even exist, and all other parts of
the tube, for that matter ... but then, I doubt you have a mind which
can even begin to fathom speculation on ether -- so you are pretty much
stuck where you are!

Regards,
JS

If something/anything is moving FTL, such as gravity, then we can't
possibly detect it even though it is still there. Perhaps the matrix
or flow of ether is simply FTL.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

All of my tee vee sets have Vacuum picture tubes.I am watching my typed
letters showing up on screen right now as I am typing this sheet, on my
Sansui 27 inch screen tee vee set that I use only for WebTV, WebTV
Comfort Zone.My other tee vee set (Sony 27 inch flat screen tee vee set)
has Thunderoad movie on there right now.Next up on TCM, Godzilla, King
of the Monsters.

I am Mike Fink, King of the Riverrrr,,,,,,
cuhulin

Author: 'Birth Certificate' prompts departure of White House counsel
http://www.wnd.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com

Phony Fake Ass Fraud Forgery!
cuhulin

John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 11:28 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:

...
So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether"
existed?

Well hardly since there is no such thing.

He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a
bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity?
...

See, that is why you are wrong on most points, you get the basic laws
screwed up and how do you expect anything else you are going to say to
make any sense -- IT WON'T!

"The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical
and electromagnetic events." -- Einstein (Source, Pais, "Subtle is the
Lord" p 313.)


AND --

In 1920 Albert Einstein stated [1]:

page 16: But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be
adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is
ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality
whatever. The fundamental facts of (quantum) mechanics do not
harmonize with this view.

page 23: 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

Ether is a volatile organic compound at one time used as an anaesthetic.

If you intend to push the aether theory at least get the terminology
right fer petes sake.


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.

The "æther" described by those who hold to that view does NOT mean a
mechanical medium whose deformations correspond to electromagnetic fields,
but rather a locally preferred state of rest at each point of spacetime.

You clearly failed to grasp this major difference between classical
views of the aether as a physical substance and modern aetheric
theories that view it as an aspec of spacetime.

Try reading
EINSTEIN-ÆTHER THEORY by
CHRISTOPHER ELING , TED JACOBSON , AND DAVID MATTINGLY


From he
http://www.helical-structures.org/ei...bout_ether.htm

And:
http://www.blavatsky.net/science/ether/ether.htm


Oh please Blavatsky as a reference, who will you choose next ?

Gypsy Rose Lee perhaps.


And:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B



You need to jump off that wagon and now jump on the "hair-splitting"
wagon of what Einstein meant!

But then, that is what I like about you, YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG!

ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

You aseem to be incapable of understanding
even the most basic tenets of the subject.

Special Relativity clearly shows that an aether is NOT required
and clearly states that an aether in the classic sense of a physical
medium is nonsense.

Taking fragments of writing out of context and using them as 'proof' is not
convincing.

What Einstein did was to write that a solid phase Aether "seemed" to be a
necessary
consequence" of light transmission. He then went on to demonstrate that
something
that "seemed" to be necessary actually was not.

He sums up saying "according to the General Theory of Relativity space is
endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether"

However he makes it clear this is NOT a physical medium, instead he states

"But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. "

Keith

On 6/2/2011 5:15 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 11:28 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:

...
So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether"
existed?

Well hardly since there is no such thing.

He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a
bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity?
...

See, that is why you are wrong on most points, you get the basic laws
screwed up and how do you expect anything else you are going to say to
make any sense -- IT WON'T!

"The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical
and electromagnetic events." -- Einstein (Source, Pais, "Subtle is the
Lord" p 313.)


AND --

In 1920 Albert Einstein stated [1]:

page 16: But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be
adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is
ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality
whatever. The fundamental facts of (quantum) mechanics do not
harmonize with this view.

page 23: 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

Ether is a volatile organic compound at one time used as an anaesthetic.

If you intend to push the aether theory at least get the terminology
right fer petes sake.


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.

The "æther" described by those who hold to that view does NOT mean a
mechanical medium whose deformations correspond to electromagnetic fields,
but rather a locally preferred state of rest at each point of spacetime.

You clearly failed to grasp this major difference between classical
views of the aether as a physical substance and modern aetheric
theories that view it as an aspec of spacetime.

Try reading
EINSTEIN-ÆTHER THEORY by
CHRISTOPHER ELING , TED JACOBSON , AND DAVID MATTINGLY


From he
http://www.helical-structures.org/ei...bout_ether.htm

And:
http://www.blavatsky.net/science/ether/ether.htm


Oh please Blavatsky as a reference, who will you choose next ?

Gypsy Rose Lee perhaps.


And:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B



You need to jump off that wagon and now jump on the "hair-splitting"
wagon of what Einstein meant!

But then, that is what I like about you, YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG!

ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

You aseem to be incapable of understanding
even the most basic tenets of the subject.

Special Relativity clearly shows that an aether is NOT required
and clearly states that an aether in the classic sense of a physical
medium is nonsense.

Taking fragments of writing out of context and using them as 'proof' is not
convincing.

What Einstein did was to write that a solid phase Aether "seemed" to be a
necessary
consequence" of light transmission. He then went on to demonstrate that
something
that "seemed" to be necessary actually was not.

He sums up saying "according to the General Theory of Relativity space is
endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether"

However he makes it clear this is NOT a physical medium, instead he states

"But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. "

Keith



All I see is a nut telling me what they think, imagine, deduce, have
visions of, psychically know, etc., and not a very inventive one, at that!

But, you have indicated to now go into the "hair-splitting-phase" of
what "Einstein meant" ... gee, now where have I seen that before?

ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

On 6/2/2011 5:15 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 11:28 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:

...
So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether"
existed?

Well hardly since there is no such thing.

He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a
bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity?
...

See, that is why you are wrong on most points, you get the basic laws
screwed up and how do you expect anything else you are going to say to
make any sense -- IT WON'T!

"The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without
mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical
and electromagnetic events." -- Einstein (Source, Pais, "Subtle is the
Lord" p 313.)


AND --

In 1920 Albert Einstein stated [1]:

page 16: But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be
adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is
ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality
whatever. The fundamental facts of (quantum) mechanics do not
harmonize with this view.

page 23: 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

Ether is a volatile organic compound at one time used as an anaesthetic.

If you intend to push the aether theory at least get the terminology
right fer petes sake.


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.

The "æther" described by those who hold to that view does NOT mean a
mechanical medium whose deformations correspond to electromagnetic fields,
but rather a locally preferred state of rest at each point of spacetime.

You clearly failed to grasp this major difference between classical
views of the aether as a physical substance and modern aetheric
theories that view it as an aspec of spacetime.

Try reading
EINSTEIN-ÆTHER THEORY by
CHRISTOPHER ELING , TED JACOBSON , AND DAVID MATTINGLY


From he
http://www.helical-structures.org/ei...bout_ether.htm

And:
http://www.blavatsky.net/science/ether/ether.htm


Oh please Blavatsky as a reference, who will you choose next ?

Gypsy Rose Lee perhaps.


And:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B



You need to jump off that wagon and now jump on the "hair-splitting"
wagon of what Einstein meant!

But then, that is what I like about you, YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG!

ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

You aseem to be incapable of understanding
even the most basic tenets of the subject.

Special Relativity clearly shows that an aether is NOT required
and clearly states that an aether in the classic sense of a physical
medium is nonsense.

Taking fragments of writing out of context and using them as 'proof' is not
convincing.

What Einstein did was to write that a solid phase Aether "seemed" to be a
necessary
consequence" of light transmission. He then went on to demonstrate that
something
that "seemed" to be necessary actually was not.

He sums up saying "according to the General Theory of Relativity space is
endowed with
physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether"

However he makes it clear this is NOT a physical medium, instead he states

"But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. "

Keith



Ether is the single most important element in the form, structure and
operation of our world and universe.

Without it, the "attractive" and "repulsive" components of atomic
particles, would not, could not, exist. It is only because of ether
serving as a medium for all the electric and magnetic "communications
between these atomic particles, the nucleus, electrons, photons, etc.,
etc. that matter is able to form itself into the organized units it
does, to hold these shapes, and to exhibit the properties it does.

You have backwards, it is NOT the matter which has the greater
importance and you can ignore the ether, it is just the fact that
NOTHING would exist as it does without this ether ...

What an idiot and an outright imbecilic slob! For awhile I wondered,
but obviously, you are the MOST stupid here!

Regards,
JS

PLANET XEGESIS - 10 http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/leadstory142.htm

We are all effin DOOMED anyway, I tell you we are DOOMED! There is NO
Escape.
cuhulin

On 6/2/11 19:46 , John Smith wrote:


Ether is the single most important element in the form, structure
and operation of our world and universe.

Without it, the "attractive" and "repulsive" components of atomic
particles, would not, could not, exist. It is only because of ether
serving as a medium for all the electric and magnetic
"communications between these atomic particles, the nucleus,
electrons, photons, etc., etc. that matter is able to form itself
into the organized units it does, to hold these shapes, and to
exhibit the properties it does.

You have backwards, it is NOT the matter which has the greater
importance and you can ignore the ether, it is just the fact that
NOTHING would exist as it does without this ether ...

What an idiot and an outright imbecilic slob! For awhile I wondered,
but obviously, you are the MOST stupid here!

Regards,
JS




You know, John...in the 18th century, this thinking would be
considered visionary.

But today, with General Relativity, String Theory, and a pretty
good running start at a Grand Unified Theory, it's a little behind
the times. Like Newtonian mechanics. Good for it's time. But in a
universe of speeds that may be expressed as an appreciable fraction
of C, not really all that precise. As described by Lorenz. And
demonstrated at Princeton.

The theory of ether was rather undone by Michelson and Morely in
1887, when they devised an experiment to detect the ether wind with
negative results.

The notion of a universally distributed inter-matter substance
called ether has been replaced with the thinking that aether is a
property of space, which Einstein demostrated through General
Relativity was not only subject to bending, distortion and
curvature, but was also finite without edge, curving back on itself,
not unlike a Moebius band. Creating a universe in which travel in a
single direction of sufficient duration will result in a return to
the origin. Put another way, if you had a telescope large enough, if
you looked in any direction long enough, eventually, you'd see the
back of your own head.

On 6/2/2011 7:45 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 6/2/11 19:46 , John Smith wrote:


Ether is the single most important element in the form, structure
and operation of our world and universe.

Without it, the "attractive" and "repulsive" components of atomic
particles, would not, could not, exist. It is only because of ether
serving as a medium for all the electric and magnetic
"communications between these atomic particles, the nucleus,
electrons, photons, etc., etc. that matter is able to form itself
into the organized units it does, to hold these shapes, and to
exhibit the properties it does.

You have backwards, it is NOT the matter which has the greater
importance and you can ignore the ether, it is just the fact that
NOTHING would exist as it does without this ether ...

What an idiot and an outright imbecilic slob! For awhile I wondered,
but obviously, you are the MOST stupid here!

Regards,
JS




You know, John...in the 18th century, this thinking would be considered
visionary.

But today, with General Relativity, String Theory, and a pretty good
running start at a Grand Unified Theory, it's a little behind the times.
Like Newtonian mechanics. Good for it's time. But in a universe of
speeds that may be expressed as an appreciable fraction of C, not really
all that precise. As described by Lorenz. And demonstrated at Princeton.

The theory of ether was rather undone by Michelson and Morely in 1887,
when they devised an experiment to detect the ether wind with negative
results.

The notion of a universally distributed inter-matter substance called
ether has been replaced with the thinking that aether is a property of
space, which Einstein demostrated through General Relativity was not
only subject to bending, distortion and curvature, but was also finite
without edge, curving back on itself, not unlike a Moebius band.
Creating a universe in which travel in a single direction of sufficient
duration will result in a return to the origin. Put another way, if you
had a telescope large enough, if you looked in any direction long
enough, eventually, you'd see the back of your own head.



Yeah, sure isn't visionary, been known about for a LONG time ... it is
just where the cutting edge is taking us, at this point ... I agree,
except for an absolute shape/size/form of the universe to be known ...

I'd keep all eyes on CERN in the future ...

Regards,
JS