On 6/2/2011 7:45 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

...
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.



Let me "more blunt." I am saying nothing, other than repeating
Einstein, I just choose words to emphasize his meaning. Perhaps we
don't agree on what he has said?:

"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 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. But this
ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic
of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through
time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

He is the one placing the importance on the ether, the "standards" ARE
the structure of our world and universe ...

He even stipulated this!:

"Therefore, instead of speaking of an ether, one could equally well
speak of physical qualities of space. Now one could take the position
that all physical objects fall under this category, because in the final
analysis in a theory of fields the ponderable matter, or the elementary
particles that constitute matter, also have to be considered as ‘fields’
of a particular kind, or as particular ‘states’ of the space."

If you think I am attempting to represent myself as a "visionary", you
are sadly mistaken, I meant no such thing. Read the masters words
c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y!

Anyway, others fight with the meaning of all this he
http://www.space-matters.info/newstuff.html

History repeats itself, on USENET?

Regards,
JS

On 6/2/2011 7:45 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

...

And, please, when examing the page I gave, don't miss this important point:

More recently, from The Dartmouth, published Friday, 7 May 2010

"In his Thursday 6 May lecture “What is Space?” Frank Wilczek, 2004
Nobel laureate in physics, said, ‘Space is the primary ingredient of
physical reality.’

He went on to add ‘We’re in a very special moment of history, because we
are like fish who finally realized we were living in water.’"

I have said nothing! I have simply read what great minds think,
analyzed it, applied my logic and reason, and agreed to accept it --
until better explains "it."

You are becoming a drag. I am having to spoon feed this all to you
because you are in ignorance of subjects you suddenly jump in on and
start your rants which go in circles and tangents!

You could avoid all this by simply doing a bit of reading and research
and be in a state of being able to make rational and usable comments and
statements.

Or, go on like the rest of the morons here ... no offense meant -- just
sayin'. But, if this is your choice, expect replies to you to become a
lot shorter and direct ...

Regards,
JS

On 6/2/2011 5:47 PM, John Smith wrote:


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 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.



"Aether, much like god, can be treated exactly
as if it does not exist" -HVAC








--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Einstein was quite clear that space was a non-Euclidian construct.
That, in fact, it was quite flexible, and that there were no straight
lines.

That would mean there are no straight lines anywhere...if you think about it.
;-)

On Jun 3, 8:26*am, John Smith wrote:
On 6/3/2011 6:46 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
Interesting that K-12s are not permitted to access or utilize Google
Groups or much less contribute within these Usenet/newsgroups, perhaps
because of folks like yourself that would topic/author stalk and bash
at anyone suggesting alternative interpretations or acting the least
bit independent, and thus capable of deductively interpreting on their
own.

Obviously you want everyone to be as smart as yourself (but never any
smarter), so why is this world of yours in such a mess?

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

Actually, that is a bit more than I am attempting to cause to happen ...
or am actually stating.

D. Peter Maus is NOT an absolute moron of the common type found here --
I have NOT found diabolical-evil intent in his posts. *Indeed, both you
and he seem to have something(s) to offer, and at best, that is all
which any of can do. *Somehow, I think he has, and too quickly, moved
over the fine meaning of what is delivered up in our institutions of
"higher learning." *I have made this error, and many times ... when I
first found this out, I went back to my colleges, grabbed department
heads and held their feet to the fire, and asked them why the material
in their institution(s) never covered the detail/truths I was now
finding in my area(s) of hire/employment, and to make these important
truths dramatically apparent to me?

To cut to the chase, and almost to a person, all answers contained a
common central theme, "It never was our intent nor obligation to teach
you 'what you need to know', but rather to teach you how to learn what
you need to know." (answers, condensed, 'averaged' and paraphrased, of
course!) *At that time, many decades ago, this angered me ... no longer..
* I now see it was my errors which were the actual fault.

And, all this was tempered by the fact that I had been exposed to the
same materials, as I was now showing them, as proofs -- but the error(s)
were in the "interpretations" of that/those materials. *Further, they
pointed out, at any time, I could have chosen to argue any points I
found relevant and with great meaning, and in opposition to that which
is "commonly accepted" ... instead of "just worrying about the grade."

But, here, in NGs, we find REAL morons, and are forced into dealing with
"those types" here (or, PLONK EM'! :-) ), it is easy to become cynical
and just expect the next comment/statement out of next persons mouth
(fingers, mind, etc.) to simply be a new serving of tripe.

I simply mean to remind some of the above of, my mistakes, others
mistakes, etc. *But, I don't mind getting "down and dirty" to cause this
to happen ... the focus, the interest, is in "what-is-REALLY-goin'-on!"
* Those of us who can move in that/those direction(s) now will ...

Regards,
JS

Most of what seems like loose cannon or friendly fire is actually
intended to be lethal from the very get go.

These mainstream status-quo minions, parrots and brown-nosed clowns
have it in for anyone that doesn't follow their lead and worship each
and every word they have to say. The last thing they want to allow is
any revision of history or science/physics interpretations other than
peer approved by those which they worship as gods. So there's a wee
little problem with these FUD-masters whenever anything the least bit
different, new or improved comes along, and should by accident any
K12s show up, there's no way that this general K12 public is going to
be allowed to see or interpret things any other way than their
mainstream status-quo and/or closed mindset way.

Hitler as well as GW Bush needed that kind of blind loyalty, and for
the most part got it and then some.

William Mook has some capability of publishing the best available
truth(s) in K12 textbook format.

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

On 6/3/2011 4:52 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
Most of what seems like loose cannon or friendly fire is actually
intended to be lethal from the very get go.

These mainstream status-quo minions, parrots and brown-nosed clowns
have it in for anyone that doesn't follow their lead and worship each
and every word they have to say. The last thing they want to allow is
any revision of history or science/physics interpretations other than
peer approved by those which they worship as gods. So there's a wee
little problem with these FUD-masters whenever anything the least bit
different, new or improved comes along, and should by accident any
K12s show up, there's no way that this general K12 public is going to
be allowed to see or interpret things any other way than their
mainstream status-quo and/or closed mindset way.

Hitler as well as GW Bush needed that kind of blind loyalty, and for
the most part got it and then some.

William Mook has some capability of publishing the best available
truth(s) in K12 textbook format.

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

Too bad they ain't here for the laughs, kinda' one side, they supplying
all the humor ...

Regards,
JS

On 6/3/2011 3:23 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/3/2011 11:37 AM, John Smith wrote:


...
Think about it. In doing any calculation, aether need
not be entered as a value. In doing any calculation, god
need not be entered as a value. Therefore, they can and
actually MUST be treated exactly as if they do not exist.

Period, dot.

Game over.


I see the point you make.

Akin to saying, "We can ignore time", and sometimes we can ...

And, normally, I would agree ... but, when attempting to discover what
these things really are, or attempting to advance knowledge so we make a
jump to FTL, new energy sources, new universes, etc., I don't.

And, ether becomes of primary importance, or is paramount to discussions
on the subject ... let's just not develop a mental illness where we want
to prevent all others from ignoring-it/discussing-it ...


From discussing WHAT? Since ether doesn't exist, or can be treated
EXACTLY as if it doesn't exist, why bother to discuss it?

It amounts to mental masturbation.

Personally, I don't jerk-off in public.....Much.




How fitting, it all began with your personal opinions, then filling in
with personal attacks and tomfoolery, now back to personal opinion ...
full circle.

Regards,
JS

Is there any such thing as a perfect circle?
cuhulin

On 6/3/2011 4:52 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
Most of what seems like loose cannon or friendly fire is actually
intended to be lethal from the very get go.

These mainstream status-quo minions, parrots and brown-nosed clowns
have it in for anyone that doesn't follow their lead and worship each
and every word they have to say. The last thing they want to allow is
any revision of history or science/physics interpretations other than
peer approved by those which they worship as gods. So there's a wee
little problem with these FUD-masters whenever anything the least bit
different, new or improved comes along, and should by accident any
K12s show up, there's no way that this general K12 public is going to
be allowed to see or interpret things any other way than their
mainstream status-quo and/or closed mindset way.

Hitler as well as GW Bush needed that kind of blind loyalty, and for
the most part got it and then some.

William Mook has some capability of publishing the best available
truth(s) in K12 textbook format.

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

Too bad they ain't here for the laughs, kinda' one sided, them supplying
all the humor ... we the laughing.

Regards,
JS

On 6/3/2011 3:18 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/3/2011 1:15 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:


space = (truly) empty

If that were true you might have a point, but it's not.

Google "space" and "virtual particles"; too many hits to
cite.

Space doesn't bend, the ether does

There is no ether.

... I mean, DUH! How can "nothing" bend?

Space isn't "nothing".


This sounds exactly like a discussion I had a while
back on the astronomy group. Why some people just love
ether is beyond me. If something (ether) needs not be
used in any way as a value in a computation, why use
it at all? ...If you kick the tires and look under the
hood of these ethertards, you'll find a god believer as
well.

Well, makes more sense than throwing in the rotation interval of the
earth into equations NOT dealing with the earth! And, it has nothing to
do with anything, except the rotation of the earth. The UTF will
probably be discovered right around the time we learn to understand the
ether ...

Besides, we will never know how radio waves (or any other waves, for
that matter) transverse and are propagated by the ether though space.
Most likely, will lead to a whole new area of physics, math and devices
which utilize the properties, once we understand them.

You argument sounds familiar, "You don't have to be a mechanic to drive
a car." The areas where that argument fail are also quite apparent ...