Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: æðрь áûðòÑÂý's Aether model of QM.
Greetings,
It's filled with forces, radiation, and various chemical compounds.
You continue to attempt to shift the goalposts - first you say that there's a actual aether with definite properties, then you change your position to using the term as a synonym for the metric tensor of GR.
Science has not accepted Einstein's altered use of the term - there is no aether.
And then answer the two questions which you've continued to avoid.
Go ahead - let's hear what "evidence" you have for the "aether"....
(Now you know what it's like when someone insists on being literalistic and pedantic.)
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
That's untrue - you've been provided with evidence: you simply ignore it.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:You provided nothing.We've provided evidence throughout this discussion, yet you utterly refuse to accept anything based on science.
You choose to remain ignorant - therefore, there's no point in explaining it to you, for the umpteenth time.
Re-read the relevant posts - I will not keep on repeating myself for your amusement.
No one has suggested - least of all scientists - that there's any such thing as "empty space".æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:Yes he did. This is what Pulsar said.Yet again, as has already been explained to you, he wasn't referring to the "aether" - he was referring to ...
,,I agree with you that the general theory of relativity is closer to the ether hypothesis than the special theory. This new ether theory, however, would not violate the principle of relativity, because the state of this gμν = ether would not be that of rigid body in an independent state of motion, but every state of motion would be a function of position determined by material processes."
This is obviously the same thing as I said. Einsteins metric of teh spacetime has brought back the aether. At first, he removed it in STR, thus leaving the vacuum nothing more than empty space. But now, he knew that there is a thing as different kind of forces in teh vacuum. Thus the vacuum is NOT empty space. In other word, it has properties. Thus, after realizing that, he reintroduced the aether in GTR.
Here are the relevant quotes:
we will not be able to do without the ether in theoretical physics, i.e., a
continuum which is equipped with physical properties; for the general theory, whose
basic points of view physicists surely will always maintain, excludes direct distant
action. But every contiguous action theory presumes continuous fields, and therefore
also the existence of an ,,ether."
He clearly states, that we do need the aether.
,,We may still use the word ether, but only to express the physical properties of
space. The word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of science. At the moment, it no longer stands for a medium built up of particles. Its
story, by no means finished, is continued by the relativity theory."
Again, saying that he changed the definition of the aether and incorporated it in GTR.
,,Physical space and ether are only different terms for the same thing; fields are
physical states of space."[
Once more. SPACE = AETHER. It has properties. Vacuum is NOT empty space.As we can see, at that time, Einstein considered the gravitational and elektrrognetic fields as states of space i.e. of the new ether.
And this is the quote from the person who wrote the article. He also agrees with me. Gravitational, and electromagnetic fields are what exists in vacuum space. Thus vacuum is not empty space. Thus aether exists in GTR. The only difference, as I pointed out many times before, is that it has no absolute reference frame attributed to it. Thus, this is what Einstein did. He tool the aether, removed from it the attribute of absolute reference frame, and incorporated it in GTR.
It's filled with forces, radiation, and various chemical compounds.
You continue to attempt to shift the goalposts - first you say that there's a actual aether with definite properties, then you change your position to using the term as a synonym for the metric tensor of GR.
Science has not accepted Einstein's altered use of the term - there is no aether.
Here's what you said:æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:That's not my job. I'm not in favor of any of those methods. I'm just pointing out that the modern ones incorporate more assumptions than simple trigonometry.Prove that radar and all the other modern methods are less accurate than someone looking up at the sky with only their eyesight to measure the heavens.
You made an assertion - it behoves you to prove itSending radar waves into space and waiting for them to bounce back from the Moon requires more assumption than simple trigonometry. That's a fact.
The sentence which states the value and the sentence which hints from where I got it.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:Read what?As I said, you suffer from "selective reading disorder".
It's there - right in front of you on the screen!!
Re-read it - as slowly as you need.
And then answer the two questions which you've continued to avoid.
And then answer the two questions which you've continued to avoid.
Then you can't use him to prove your assertion that the aether exists.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:Neither is Einstein.Any "scientist" who made that claim isn't a real scientist.
In everyday life it does. Your retreat into philosophical musing about "What is reality?" is irrelevant to the discussion.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:I'm using it to show you that your method can't tell apart what is really moving.Nothing to do with it.
Relativity is a fact - as you well know, since you use it to make your arguments against the claim that the train was moving. ("Relative to what?")
Marmet lost his chair - what better evidence is there for someone who is considered to be on the "fringe" of Science - and who's considered to have fallen off the edge of the scientific world into "pseudo-science"?æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:And youd o when claiming that my sources are written by pseudo-scientists?Keep avoiding the questions, you don't score points doing so.
From the "sources" you've been quoting up to now, you do. Unless it's only when they agree with your opinions.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:I don't accept works from pseudo-scientists. Next.Wrong - Einstein managed to do it back in the early 20th century without the benefit of computers to do the calculations for him.
The answer I gave, in general, is the explanation - you're going to make another attempt at trying to use this as evidence of "the aether"...æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:Okay, now answer my points.Oh, so now you remember reading my explanation - after alleging above that I didn't give one, but said that AndromedasWake would??
Go ahead - let's hear what "evidence" you have for the "aether"....
No - analysis using statistical methods to detect them, along with advances in Science which contradict said papers will reveal such erroneous results.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:A statement of faith.And whatever manages to slip past the peer-review process will always be discovered.
The station - as any two-year-old could tell you, if you weren't so intent on being sophist.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:No I do not. I'm asking you because your model does not work unless you say relative to what something is moving.So, you do believe in relativity after all!
As a two-year-old would tell you; "the station".æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:No. YOU are the one who has this need. Because the sentence: ~The trin is moving" is meaningless in the context of relativity. It has got to be relative to something else. So I'm asking you, what is it moving relative to?Any normal person knows what is meant when someone says "the train is moving" in everyday parlance.
You have a pedantic need to bring reference-frames into the discussion.
It can't - it needs tracks to do so.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:Okay, let's try it this way. If there was only 1 object in the universe, the train, how do you know the train is moving? It's moving because?
(Now you know what it's like when someone insists on being literalistic and pedantic.)
In the everyday world relativity doesn't count - people on a train "know" that it's the train that's moving, not the station, the world, the solar system or the universe.æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:Because that's what we are talking about.There's nothing wrong with relativity - just your fixation on absolute/relative reference frames.
Then you accept that there are "horses for courses"?æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:I certainly wouldn't use it.Are you suggesting that it's alright to use a maritime compass to navigate in space?
So you're saying that the one is more likely to be right - all else being equal?æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:No. When did I say that?Changing the subject? And - really?
I take it then that you concede the point that the one is more likely to be wrong than the many?
I'm asking you - where would they be?æðрь áûðòÑÂý said:You don't know about the other planets, since Rowbotham never measured them.They won't - because their orbits will be on a proportional scale to the Sun (1000 miles above the Earth) and Venus (300 miles above the Earht).
Kindest regards,
James