Re: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"

Subject: "Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"


"Doof" <d...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
. . . .


O'Barr comments:
H.E. Retic (Doof in this post) has been on this net,
he says, since 1997. I have been on the net since
1994. I have articles written since 1962.
Let me take his last posting, and go through one
or two points. It is important that we are able to
properly note what it is that he is trying to
establish (that is, what are the facts that are
important to his theory) and the logic he uses to
arrive at or to conclude that these facts are
correct. Both set of points are important. But we
must also know that the most important thing is to
arrive at the correct final conclusion. The logic of
getting there could even be faulty. But it is the
correctness of our final decision that is the most
important achievement. And so what I want to do is
to clearly find out what the final decisions are, and
the logic of getting to these final decisions are not
nearly as critical.
To do this, let me outline H.E. Retic's last article:


START OF RETIC's ARTICLE, AS INTERPRETED BY O'BARR:
(This means that I have added a word or two,
and I received no permission to do this. Please
forgive me if I make too many mistakes!)
****************************************************

Evidence of the Existence of (free-space) Aether

1. The ether exists (and it exists everywhere):

Justification:
a. Free space has, at every point, the same
dielectric constant and permeability factor.

This shows that space is not empty. At least
on the level at which these factors are measured,
space can not be totally empty.

b. Light has a velocity independent of all
sources.

First of all, just to have light to have a wave
velocity requires there to be an ether, and this
ether must be everywhere where this kind of a
velocity exists. But to also have the velocity of light
to be independent of its source, this also shows that
there must be an ether everywhere so that light can
enjoy a common reference with respect to all other
light, and a velocity that is independent of all
sources.

c. QA requires an ether.

Dirac's "sea of negative energy pervading all
of space" shows that space is not empty.

To have forces, "virtual particles" (e.g.-
virtual photons, gravitons, gluons, etc.), must pop
into and out of existence continuously. This shows
that space is not nothing. It cannot be nothing if
particles can come from it, it cannot be nothing
while all these particles are existing, and it cannot
be nothing if particles can disappear back into it.

d. Attractive forces requires there to be an
ether.

A boomerang returns to the thrower because it
exchanges momentum with (its) medium (air). If space
were empty (no Aether), such a momentum exchange
cannot occur and the virtual particles could only
produce a repulsive force.


O'Barr comments:
The at theory is able to show how momentum is
exchanged with the ether to produce the appearance of
attraction. This is a most important achievement,
and it must be considered in any thinking that is
done in this area of the existing of an ether.
(The at theory also explains the minimal degree of
drag that is experienced in the ether. That is, why
there is no first order ether wind, etc.)


H.E. Retic's Other statements:

Present Interpretations of QM:
a. parallel Universes coexisting in the same space
as our own that are created every time that a
particle makes a "quantum choice".

B. Another interpretation of Quantum Theory requires
that quantum effects propagate at an "infinite"
velocity.

Experiments have shown that the polarization of
"paired photons" is coupled so that changing the
polarization direction (the quantum number) of one
causes the polarization direction of the other to
change in correspondence. In addition to
demonstrating this polarization coupling, experiments
performed in the '80s have also shown that the
polarization coupling propagates at least 4 times the
velocity of light and perhaps at an infinite
velocity.

Another H.E. Retic statement:
If one examines both the Special Theory of
Relativity (STR) and the Lorentz-Contraction Aether
Theory (LCAT), he finds that they are actually the
same theory in that they are cross derivable. (LCAT)
is actually a special case solution of (STR) and
cannot be disproved without disproving (STR) as well.


O'Barr comments:
And this is all important: SR and LET are
certainly the same theory in terms of their math, and
thus in terms of their predicted measurement results.
And since modern day physics seems to be hooked to
this concept that it is only measurements that are
important, then this makes these two theories to be
identical.
But of course, physically, they are not the same
theory. SR is only a math theory. Being only math,
then SR can be interpreted in any way the math allows
it to be interpreted. And mathematically, there are
certainly a multitude of ways in which this SR math
can be interpreted.
But LET is a physical theory. Its interpretation
is fixed by its physical base. In LET, one is not
verifying the math, they are verifying the physical
base upon which the math is based. And for this
reason, LET is established with no exceptions
allowed and with no questions left unanswered.


H.E. Retic wrote:
An objection to the existence of the Aether has
been raised. This objection is that if the Aether
exists, "absolute time" would also have to exist. The
idea of absolute time has, however, been abolished in
(SR) theory. Unfortunately, its rejection did not
result from physical observation or from logical
deductions based on previously proven facts. It is
based solely upon a consensus viewpoint. In other
words, that rejection is based upon an unproven (and
probably unprovable opinion) rather than upon fact.
The motivation for this opinion would seem to be an
overwhelming urge on the part of physicists to
consider space and time to be aspects of the same
structure, spacetime, as viewed from different
reference frames so as to make their mathematical
treatment "elegant". Nature doesn't care about what
we would like to be true and there is no objectively
valid reason to accept the viewpoint.

It is claimed that the concept of spacetime
rather than space and time as separate entities
yields a simpler solution and, according to the
principle of Ockham's Razor, must therefore be the
correct one. It is true, mathematical solutions
employing the spacetime concept are much simpler than
solutions involving the Aether, but the solutions are
not simpler with respect to reality. As Dr.
Einstein, who maintained a belief in "absolute time"
for 25 years after the publication of Special
Relativity exclaimed, the "concept of spacetime
requires an infinite number of Aethers" as indeed it
does. Once one realizes this, Ockham's Razor would
lead any reasonable man to the Aether and not to the
concept of "spacetime" as a single entity.


And H.E. Retic says:
... Modern Physics seems to have been taken over
by mathematical idiot savants who lack an
appreciation for the implications of mechanism and
strive to suppress the contributions of those who
would dare to say "Hey, wait a minute"

O'Barr comments:
I well understand his feelings. There really is
full justification for what this man feels!


H.E. Retic says:
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE
CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, . . .

O'Barr's way of saying this is:
All truth testifies of all other truths!

H.E. Retic's way is better than O'Barr's way, in that it
is obviously true on its own. But my way is with
power, and it is made to be correct by the power of
the intellect.


H.E. Retic's home page:
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
His E-mail:
einsteinhoax...@xxxxxxxx
Remove ...



Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
My e-mail:
<globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove ... for e-mail.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? ... physicist transported an atomic clock around the world on jet airliner and ... He did not accept the possibility that the velocity ... with a medium, called the Aether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? ... compared the time recorded by that clock with the time recorded by an identical ... He did not accept the possibility that the velocity of the trip ... with a medium, called the Aether. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? ... compared the time recorded by that clock with the time recorded by an identical ... He did not accept the possibility that the velocity of the trip ... with a medium, called the Aether. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? ... compared the time recorded by that clock with the time recorded by an identical ... He did not accept the possibility that the velocity of the trip ... with a medium, called the Aether. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? ... compared the time recorded by that clock with the time recorded by an identical ... He did not accept the possibility that the velocity of the trip ... with a medium, called the Aether. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)