Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller
From: Kenneth Ellested (ke_at_jydsk-data.dk)
Date: 10/13/04
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: The Paradox of Zeno"
- Previous message: shevek: "Re: Self-reference, physics content in definitions, and claimed tautologies"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:28:19 GMT
> Yes, it is completely and utterly wrong to claim GR is some sort of ether
> theory. GR has no ether in any way, shape, or form.
Sorry, I will never make that assumption again.
>> With a single universal frame it sounds like the ether is
>> "re-established"?
>
> GR in general has no "single universal frame", but some specific solutions
> with high symmetry do (e.g. the FRW manifolds used as cosmological models,
> the Schwarzschild manifold, etc.).
>
>
>>>Incidentally, Einstein didn't use the term 'Inertial Frame.' That is a
>>>concept invented by Eddington, in 1920.
>> Which term did he use then - "universal" ?
>
> In 1905, Einstein used the phrase "system of coordinates in which Newton's
> laws hold good". He most definitely used the concept of inertial frame,
> just not those specific words -- the terminology has change A LOT since
> 1905 or 1916.
>
>
>> Now, if Einstein believes in an ether why don't phycisist in general?
>
> Where ever did you get the idea that "Einstein believed in an ether"?
I think I've read the quote you mention.
> Except for one quote from a conference on aether, his writings make it
> quite clear he was discussing geometrical models of the world, not ether
> models. And that one quote is not nearly as definitive as ether advocates
> around here would like to believe....
No, it wouldn't be fair to judge anyone on a single statement (unless they
were still believing it ofcourse).
>> Is it only because it hasn't been detected, or will it violate something
>> vital in the current concepts.
>
> The existence of an ether would invalidate Einstein's fundamental view of
> the world, as well as SR and GR.
OK, thanks for clarifying this.
>> How is "propagation of em" defined today - is it assumed that there isn't
>> a "medium"?
>
> It is explained in terms of fields on spacetime. No medium required.
And there I have it again. It's terrible hard to imagine "Einsteins
universe".
When I think of waves and propagation, I will automatically think medium.
How can you "transfer" light from A to B through "nothing"?
How can gravity work through "nothing"?
How can magnetism work through "nothing"?
If you now say that "nothing" IS "fields on spacetime" - then "nothing" is
actually something.
And this something must exist everywhere we can see the forces work.
In other words - in "my universe" I can intercept a light wave wherever I
want in space and stop it's motion (stop it from propagating any further -
even reflect it). If the wave doesn't exist, how can I then stop it?
This is extremely hard to imagine - why do I need an IQ worth 500+ to figure
it?
Well, in the meantime I will go try to figure what "fields on spacetime" is.
Regards
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: The Paradox of Zeno"
- Previous message: shevek: "Re: Self-reference, physics content in definitions, and claimed tautologies"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller"
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Michelson-Morley & Miller"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
