#1
|
|||
|
|||
Aether
On May 30, 8:22 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Rod Ryker wrote: The Aether is supported by many examples where things cannot be without it. Not really. At present there is no aether theory that explains the breadth of phenomena explained by modern physics (which includes GR and the standard model as fundamental theories). (The standard model includes both SR and QED, which I mention below. GR also includes SR, as a local approximation.) Putting away your zealous faith on GR, you will find GR does not deny the Aether. Of course, that does not mean GR is a valid or an “improved” theory of the Newtonian law of gravity. shrug Now examine EM Waves. There is a source that emits a wave which is NOT OF THE MEDIUM! Right. There is no "medium" for light or other EM waves. At least not in any mainstream theory of modern physics, which as I pointed out above explains a considerably wider breadth of phenomena than any other theory, aether or not. Under Maxwell’s equations, EM waves fare better with the medium called the Aether. However, the null results of the MMX steered the shallow minds (which include almost all physicists) away through gross misinterpretations to the consequences of these null results. Whether Maxwell’s equations are valid or not, that is another chapter of discussions. However, all observed phenomena of EM waves are best interpreted with the Aether in mind. shrug The physicists did not understand where to look for the Aether. The null results of the MMX actually have hinted at the existence of the Aether, but through ignorance and stupidities, mysticism has ruled. Finally, the physicists actually understood where to look for the Aether through the Doppler shift in CMBR, but they have discarded the results. What a bunch of high priests zealously and faithfully stand by their fouled religion, eh? shrug In physics we call something a "wave" when it obeys laws that constitute a wave equation. THAT is the defining characteristic, not the presence of "something that waves" (i.e. a medium). Well, He (Yours Truly) supposes you can bring up an example of an observed wave that does not require a medium to propagate, then. Please do so, and please don’t bring up any variety of abstract waves describing probabilities. shrug If one is willing to speak rather loosely, one could say that in QED what is "waving" is probability. This is a sound bite that does not really capture the essence of the theory, and is naive in several aspects, but it does satisfy some peoples' need for there to be "something that is waving". Note that probability does make sense here, and is not in any way a medium. For instance, "probability waving" explains in general both the geometrical optics and the wave approximations for EM waves, the double-slit experiment, etc. Wow! You are a step ahead of Him to justify to continue to believe in your bull****. The bottom line is that probability waves are spiritual in nature. EM waves are tangible and observable. shrug (Yes, it is really the "complex square root" of probability, and there are MANY other complexities.) In actuality, SR and GR have nothing to do with probabilities. So, stop creating more mysticism to justify your zealous belief in this religion of SR and GR. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Aether
On Jun 2, 10:30 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote: Putting away your zealous faith on GR, you will find GR does not deny the Aether. Of course, that does not mean GR is a valid or an improved theory of the Newtonian law of gravity. shrug Putting away your zealous faith on Aether, You are grossly mistaken. True scholars of science have no faith but logical and reasonable deductions to support the conclusions as claims. You need to go back to your 7th grade science class and understand what science is. shrug you will find Aether does not deny the GR. GR is mathematically inconsistent. On top of that, the mathematical constructs that created GR were man-made mathematical artifacts. Thus, your statement is stupid above and ignorant. shrug Of course, that does not mean Aether is a valid or an improved theory of the Galilean law of relativity. shrug Androcles the ignorant has to study electromagnetism. Classical electromagnetism if applied with Galilean relativity cannot explain the null results of the MMX. Thus, Galilean transform is not valid for the general case. Of course, that does not mean the Lorentz transform is valid. shrug It is more scientifically logical to modify the Galilean transform instead of going back to the stone age of accepting Newtonian concept on the corpuscle in light and keeping the Galilean transfrom. shrug You need to get over with Wendy. shrug |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Aether
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message ... | On Jun 2, 10:30 pm, "Androcles" wrote: | "Koobee Wublee" wrote: | | Putting away your zealous faith on GR, you will find GR does not deny | the Aether. Of course, that does not mean GR is a valid or an | improved theory of the Newtonian law of gravity. shrug | | Putting away your zealous faith on Aether, | | You are grossly mistaken. Putting away your zealous faith on ghostly ectoplasm, you will find ghostly ectoplasm does not deny the GR. Of course, that does not mean ghostly ectoplasm is a valid or an "improved" theory of the Galilean law of relativity. shrug |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Aether
On Jun 2, 10:21*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 30, 8:22 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: Rod Ryker wrote: The Aether is supported by many examples where things cannot be without it. Not really. At present there is no aether theory that explains the breadth of phenomena explained by modern physics (which includes GR and the standard model as fundamental theories). * * * * (The standard model includes both SR and QED, which I mention * * * * *below. GR also includes SR, as a local approximation..) Putting away your zealous faith on GR, you will find GR does not deny the Aether. *Of course, that does not mean GR is a valid or an “improved” theory of the Newtonian law of gravity. *shrug Now examine EM Waves. There is a source that emits a wave which is NOT OF THE MEDIUM! Right. There is no "medium" for light or other EM waves. At least not in any mainstream theory of modern physics, which as I pointed out above explains a considerably wider breadth of phenomena than any other theory, aether or not. Under Maxwell’s equations, EM waves fare better with the medium called the Aether. *However, the null results of the MMX steered the shallow minds (which include almost all physicists) away through gross misinterpretations to the consequences of these null results. *Whether Maxwell’s equations are valid or not, that is another chapter of discussions. *However, all observed phenomena of EM waves are best interpreted with the Aether in mind. *shrug The physicists did not understand where to look for the Aether. *The null results of the MMX actually have hinted at the existence of the Aether, but through ignorance and stupidities, mysticism has ruled. Finally, the physicists actually understood where to look for the Aether through the Doppler shift in CMBR, but they have discarded the results. *What a bunch of high priests zealously and faithfully stand by their fouled religion, eh? *shrug In physics we call something a "wave" when it obeys laws that constitute a wave equation. THAT is the defining characteristic, not the presence of "something that waves" (i.e. a medium). Well, He (Yours Truly) supposes you can bring up an example of an observed wave that does not require a medium to propagate, then. Please do so, and please don’t bring up any variety of abstract waves describing probabilities. *shrug If one is willing to speak rather loosely, one could say that in QED what is "waving" is probability. This is a sound bite that does not really capture the essence of the theory, and is naive in several aspects, but it does satisfy some peoples' need for there to be "something that is waving". Note that probability does make sense here, and is not in any way a medium. For instance, "probability waving" explains in general both the geometrical optics and the wave approximations for EM waves, the double-slit experiment, etc. Wow! *You are a step ahead of Him to justify to continue to believe in your bull****. *The bottom line is that probability waves are spiritual in nature. *EM waves are tangible and observable. *shrug * * * * (Yes, it is really the "complex square root" of probability, * * * * *and there are MANY other complexities.) In actuality, SR and GR have nothing to do with probabilities. *So, stop creating more mysticism to justify your zealous belief in this religion of SR and GR. *shrug Isn't the gravity null of a cosmic lens kind of where the Aether is getting pulled apart? (sort of getting thinned out to the point where normal wave propagation simply can't pass directly through) http://groups.google.com/group/googl...t/topics?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Aether
what is unnormal propogation of waves?... all vacuum is relative!
normal wave propagation simply can't pass directly through) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aether or whatever | George Dishman | Astronomy Misc | 342 | March 27th 07 05:07 PM |
Aether or whatever | Researcher | Astronomy Misc | 17 | October 24th 06 06:20 PM |
Aether or whatever | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 17th 06 05:17 AM |
What if there is an Aether | The Postman | Misc | 28 | April 28th 05 10:48 PM |
A model of the aether | nightbat | Misc | 19 | August 19th 04 09:52 PM |