Geocentrism revisited (Was: Frootbat's something-or-other...)

On Mar 18, 2:24 pm, "oldcoot" wrote:
On Mar 18, 1:05 pm, "Double-A" wrote:

It seems to me that Michelson-Morley supports one of two things:
either the instrument contracts enough in the direction of the Earth's
motion to negate the effects of motion through the aether and making
them undetectable by this method, which supports Einstein; or else the
instrument does not contract, as classical physics would hold, and
then the results support the idea that there is no aether. But I
don't see how the results can support both Einstein and no medium.

As stated many times, the MMX null result was consistent with a
*vertically* flowing, entrained medium (entrained flow field or EFF),
and would be expected. Had the interferometer been set up to detect a
vertical flow (which it was not), the vertical arm would have
undergone foreshortening by the Lorentz contraction, and would've
still given a null result. Since MMX was set up to detect a *lateral*
flow and found none, this *proves only* the non-existance of an
immobile 'rigid lattice' medium (as the "ether" was then deemed to
be). MMX did NOT disprove existance of the fully mobile, entrained,
fluid medium that space _demonstrates itself_ to be. Rather MMX was
fully consistent with it.
oc(Bill)


Apparently Einstein did not have the impression that MMX had disproven
the aether when he was formulating his theories, since he held onto
that concept well into the 1920's. Only in the mythology of modern
day physics texts is such an impression given.

Double-A

On 2007-03-18 22:48:38 +0000, "Double-A" said:

Apparently Einstein did not have the impression that MMX had disproven
the aether when he was formulating his theories, since he held onto
that concept well into the 1920's. Only in the mythology of modern
day physics texts is such an impression given.

cite sources.

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On 2007-03-18 22:48:38 +0000, "Double-A" said:


Apparently Einstein did not have the impression that MMX had disproven
the aether when he was formulating his theories, since he held onto
that concept well into the 1920's. Only in the mythology of modern
day physics texts is such an impression given.


http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

.... The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties,
nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place....

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On Mar 18, 2:48 pm, "Double-A" wrote:

Apparently Einstein did not have the impression that MMX had disproven
the aether when he was formulating his theories, since he held onto
that concept well into the 1920's. Only in the mythology of modern
day physics texts is such an impression given.


True. And therein lies a major quandary. After wholeheartedly
endorsing the Lorentz "ether" until well into the 1920s *even though*
such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproven by MMX in 1887, he
suddenly and inexplicably flip-flopped to the 'no medium' doctrine.
Why the 35+ year delay before flip-flopping?
One can only conclude that he MUSTA known the
truth- that it is *not* a rigid medium but a fully-fluid one. But
instead of pursuing the logical course of further investigating this
dynamic, compressible-expansible FLUID that's amenable to density
gradients, he chose, for reasons known only to himself, to slam the
book shut and enshrine the Void-Space Paradigm. And the rest, as they
say, is history.
oc

On Mar 18, 3:03 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
On 2007-03-18 22:48:38 +0000, "Double-A" said:



Apparently Einstein did not have the impression that MMX had disproven
the aether when he was formulating his theories, since he held onto
that concept well into the 1920's. Only in the mythology of modern
day physics texts is such an impression given.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

... The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties,
nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place....

--


Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the
University of Leiden

"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scie.../einstein.html

Double-A

On 2007-03-18 23:14:50 +0000, "oldcoot" said:

True. And therein lies a major quandary. After wholeheartedly
endorsing the Lorentz "ether" until well into the 1920s *even though*
such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproven by MMX in 1887, he
suddenly and inexplicably flip-flopped to the 'no medium' doctrine.
Why the 35+ year delay before flip-flopping?
One can only conclude that he MUSTA known the
truth- that it is *not* a rigid medium but a fully-fluid one. But
instead of pursuing the logical course of further investigating this
dynamic, compressible-expansible FLUID that's amenable to density
gradients, he chose, for reasons known only to himself, to slam the
book shut and enshrine the Void-Space Paradigm. And the rest, as they
say, is history.


Spacetime is incredibly rigid. No matter how much you try and distort
Einsteins words, he never agreed with you.


--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On 2007-03-18 23:24:25 +0000, "Double-A" said:

Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the
University of Leiden

"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scie.../einstein.html

Double-A

That doesn't defend the view - it merely points out the suppositions
one has to state to reject the aether.

--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On 2007-03-18 23:24:25 +0000, "Double-A" said:

Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the
University of Leiden

"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scie.../einstein.html

Double-A


"Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of
the ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see
with the next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It
moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium
if one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure
matter) as the condition thereof ".

His explanation why. His words. He considered the EM field as a useful
analogy, but nothing more.

"we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is
endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists
an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no
propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for
standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore
any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not
be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it."

He considered the EM fields as the transmission media. So bzzt - wrong
thanks for playing


--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."

On Mar 18, 3:36 pm, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:
On 2007-03-18 23:24:25 +0000, "Double-A" said:

Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the
University of Leiden

"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in
favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to
assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The
fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scie.../einstein.html

Double-A

That doesn't defend the view - it merely points out the suppositions
one has to state to reject the aether.

--

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."

-- Albert Einstein
Same source as above.

Double-A

On 2007-03-18 23:42:43 +0000, "Double-A" said:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of
relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there
not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of
existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks),
nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."

note IN THAT SENSE.

Thats not an admission. Its called an ANALOGY.
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:

"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."