Re: Wikipedia articles on relativity


dda1 wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
dda1 wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
Most of the relativity articles in Wikipedia seem to have
been taken over by varying degrees of crackpottery. I
guess the crackpots are more persistent. Is there a
solution?

--
Martin Hogbin

The guys in the early 1920's get all the glory while you bunch pay for
their artificial and bogus constructs.

The basis for the 1905 symptom of the Newtonian disease was the
rejection of aether/absolute space but it is only proper to allow
Newton to speak on the matter

So,what did Newton think of 'aether' in 1704,it turns out not a lot and

he rejected it explicitly -


"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."


Optics 1704


Albert managed to associate aether with Newton in 1905 through
'absolute space' -


" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least

formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential
is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not
perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
rotation to be looked upon as something real. "


http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html


Funny,funny,funny ,a bogus history which created conceptual monsters.

cretin

Funny,funny,funny, tell me all about how Albert got rid of the idea of
aether/absolute space and created a revolution !.

Do you not like Newton's rejection of an aether in 1704 ?. There was
nothing to reject in 1905,at least in terms of what Newton was up to.

What really happened is far more interesting than the bogus history
leading to speculative mathematicians sitting among the ruins of what
was once astronomy but I am content to see the whole thing unravel at a
speed that even surprises me.

Keep dreaming, idiot.

To the consternation and constipation of the aether/absolute space
community,they discovered that Isaac was a relativist who rejected
Newtonian aether/absolute space.The relativists fought back to
determine that Newton was an aetherist and rejected Newton's rejection
of an aether.Newton rejected the relativistic rejection of his
rejection and .....

If there were responsible people around this dismal situation would not
last beyond a few months,perhaps there will arrive people on the scene
who realise that the whole charade is just not worth saving.

I am an astronomer and can help you untangle absolute/relative space
from the Keplerian refinement of Copernican heliocentricity where
genuine theorists will have plenty to do with more productive and
accurate working principles for the Earths' motions and
orientations.Somehow,they will opt to try to re-arrange the same old
format with the same dismal results .

So go ahead and reject aether/absolute space along with Albert,as far
as Isaac was concerned,it was a done deal.

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."

Optics 1704

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wonderful fiction
    ... "Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, ... The so-called 'relativistic revolution was based on Albert's rejection ... of an aether/medium that Newton called 'absolute space'. ... "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Wonderful fiction
    ... "Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, ... The so-called 'relativistic revolution was based on Albert's rejection ... of an aether/medium that Newton called 'absolute space'. ... "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Wikipedia articles on relativity
    ... Newton to speak on the matter ... "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space ... Albert managed to associate aether with Newton in 1905 through ... Do you not like Newton's rejection of an aether in 1704 ?. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Wonderful fiction
    ... That's what Einstein's relativity theories ... Portraying science fiction as a human ... of an aether/medium that Newton called 'absolute space'. ... "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... Without Newton, relativity is just another ... >explained how this matter accounts for gravity. ... consider the ether. ... less of a net momentum transfer. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)