Re: Reply To Vird post "Mr. Kennaugh -The Aether is not a terrible idea."
- From: xray4abc <lemhenyil@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 20:53:26 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 20, 9:50 am, John Kennaugh
<J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Vird wrote:
No, the Aether is not a terrible idea, it is a necessary on and it does not
conflict with any observaions made since Maxwell. The M&M Experiment failed
because ur was based upon a faulty premise. It failed to recognize that the
velocity of light, in the ABSOLUTE SENSE, is not constant between reference
frames having different velocities or elevations! It is only invariant
(constant when measure with local units of measurement). SR and M&M
tell us that matter uses the locally measured veloity of light to control
its parameters. This causes any observer within a reference frame to observe
that the velocity of light is "constant". What is being done by physicists
is just as stupid as what be done by land surberyors who failed to correct
the length of their steel tapes for the effects of ambient temperature.A
land surveyor who failed to make such a correction would soon be looking for
other employment. A physicist, however, who makes the equivalent error is
glorified.
Send any reply to einsteinh...@xxxxxxx
I am sorry but I missed your posting entirely - I haven't had a lot of
time recently.
I do not think the aether is a particularly good idea but I have more
respect for some who still believe in it than I have for relativists who
have gone to extreme lengths to distort nature and emasculate physics so
as to allow themselves the luxury of not believing in the aether while
avidly and uncritically supporting a theory which is totally dependent
on the aether for its conception.
What has happened in physics is that aether became a taboo word although
the concept of the aether is at the heart of relativity. Result the
aether was renamed 'fields'. People are pounced on who suggests the
aether exists on the grounds that they can't say what it is made of, yet
the same criteria is not applied to 'fields' which used to be stresses
in the aether. If they are not stresses in the aether what are fields
made of?
I (like Einstein) think that if one's theory includes fields having an
independent existence - independent of anything causing them - then you
might as well stick with the aether and with fields being 'states' in
the aether.
"The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this
state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist
at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are
not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which
are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable
matter...... More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the
special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether..." AE
1920 lecture.
It seems to me that relativists are moving towards re-inventing the
aether anyway. I am seeing increasing reference to things being
controlled by "the fabric of space-time". As far as I can see the
"fabric of spacetime" is Lorentz's aether renamed.
Physics 'got rid of the aether' not because of anything Einstein did,
nor by experiment, nor by sophisticated theoretical wizardry. They did
it by the simple expedient of arbitrarily deciding that physical
interpretation was no longer a necessary compliment to mathematics -
which means that pointing out that something makes no physical sense is
no longer considered a valid criticism of theory. Physics without the
physical.
I believe there is a valid case for getting rid of the aether based on
the fact that light is particulate and particles will fly through empty
space without need of aether. IF one takes that route then one should
follow it through; not end up, as now, with a hotch potch of ideas which
owe their origin to something one claims one doesn't believe in.
--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi, John
Name here or name there, from nothing just nothing
can come. So, name it ether or name it vacuum, does not
matter. If waves can be created in it ...then it is a medium
of some sort. So what if we can not explain, yet, all of its
properties ?
I agree fully with you that discarding the concept of
the (a)ether may have not been the best idea.
Anyway, it is still there, in the back of all physicists'
mind, I think.
I came alone to these kind of thoughts and I find
stimulating when I can see thinkers with more or less
similar approaches to mine ones, to the subject.
Sometimes, these newsgroups, (though one can not
convince anybody of the truth of her or his ideas)
prove to be useful by leading you to.... very good
references.
For example, I learnt, for the first time, from this
group...... of Oleg D. Jefimenko and his ideas regarding
the creation of electric and magnetic fields.
I was very interested of his work..as I came myself to
the idea that in an EM wave the electric and magnetic
fields do not create each other but rather appear together,
that is simultaneously, and this is exactly one of the
things he asserts in his books.
I had an exciting reading in the last two weeks, since
I received 2 of Jefimenko's books.
I would like to hear of other physicist like him!
(Maybe we should gather the ideas of the most original
physicists to see if we got enough stuff/new insight to
make a step forward! ):-)
Cheers, LL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Looking for electronic copy of Oskar Klein, Quantum theory and five dimensional theory of relativity, Z. Phys. 37 895-906 (1926).
- Next by Date: Intrinsic Spin and the Kaluza-Klein Fifth Dimension
- Previous by thread: Looking for electronic copy of Oskar Klein, Quantum theory and five dimensional theory of relativity, Z. Phys. 37 895-906 (1926).
- Next by thread: Re: Reply To Vird post "Mr. Kennaugh -The Aether is not a terrible idea."
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
