2
   

Why in the world would Einstein suggest... 2

 
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 09:06 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Why bother reading...


Yeah, I hear ya. Especially about some trivial thing like this.

Quote:
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.

Every schoolboy knows enough to sneer at the ether concept, eh?

Quote:
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity [but] it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . It turns out that such matter exists...space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

What a word means, and/or the concepts it relate too, doesn't matter at all. All that matters is the word itself. You, know, like with the word "inertial."
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 09:58 am
@Olivier5,
What a dilemma! Who to trust?

Quote:
That theory was abandoned because there was no evidence of an aether whatsoever.

You, or this fool?

Quote:
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether."
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 10:08 am
@layman,
I know that both theories are saying the exact same thing, empirically speaking, and thus that the simplest, most elegant one will prevail while the other ends up in the dustbin of scientific theory... Waiting for a kind-hearted dustbin forager such as yourself to save her from oblivion. :-)
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 10:14 am
@Olivier5,
I see, you have been making all sorts of unqualified claims about SR and LR without having the slightest clue as to the theoretical difference between them, eh?

But, you've proved the only point you set out to make, sho nuff. To wit: I have faith (just like Christians do) and, by god, I'M ON THE SIDE OF "MODERN" SCIENCE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE!!!

The Pope appreciates such unqualified expressions of faith and devotion, I'm sure. You're 'in the club," Ollie! You might just make it to heaven after all. If not, you can at least get some high-fives from your faithful homeboys, eh?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 10:22 am
@layman,
And your take is: "I know better than believe them scientist. The moon sure is made of cheese."
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 10:27 am
@Olivier5,
Yeah, Ollie, like you I have no desire to spend one second critically analyzing a set of concepts. Why bother? There are plenty of people around to tell me just how, and just what, to think.

Not to even mention all the time I save by refusing to read anything relevant to a topic. I can just spout off and make **** up as I go with ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE that somebody else knows that my ultimate conclusions are right, somehow.
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 11:04 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I know that both theories are saying the exact same thing, empirically speaking


What you don't know is that you have repeatedly made claims in this thread which presuppose an outright rejection of SR in favor of LR, theoretically speaking.
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 11:48 am
@layman,
No, I haven't. You misunderstand everything you read.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 12:13 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Yeah, Ollie, like you I have no desire to spend one second critically analyzing a set of concepts. Why bother? There are plenty of people around to tell me just how, and just what, to think.

Oh i can criticize SR, better than you can. I'm just not as emotionally involved as you are. SR has already been superseded by GR because its own creator found it too limited... GR itself is now contradicted by experience and quantum mechanics... It will probably end up superseded by something else, as usually happen. As happened with Newton. Such is life. There's no certainty in science.

Do you know WHY you care so much, lay? Why are you so angry about all this?Are you compensating for something, or afraid of losing an absolute sense of space and time?
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 01:15 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Do you know WHY you care so much, lay?


I've answered that many times, especially in the last thread, which you claimed you had read. In just the last couple pages I have again answered it TWICE (in brief form).

What I have suspected all along is becoming more and more evident, i.e., that you don't really read, understand, or consider anything other than your own posts. It's not just the one's I post from physicists, it's every post. You never read mine, at least not to the point of trying to understand them. You simply skim them for some out of context phrase which you (very mistakenly) think you can use to say I don't know anything, but YOU do.

If you care about an answer to this question (and I know you don't), read the thread.

But, tell me. Why did YOU come bursting into this thread, full of emotion, emphatically blurting out completely unsubstantiated and totally mistaken claims relating to a topic about which you obviously know virtually nothing? What's YOUR deal--other than trying to convince yourself with every post that you make that you are some kind of genius who knows it all, I mean?
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 01:33 pm
@layman,
Quote:
you don't really read, understand, or consider anything other than your own posts.


I may have said this in a misleading way. I didn't mean to suggest that you understand your own posts. Hell, you don't even remember them. You will consistently say "X" in one post, then "not-X" in another. But, beyond that, you don't understand the implications of your own statements, and therefore consistently contradict yourself by implication.

Really, what's your motive here, exactly?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 02:09 pm
@layman,
Just passing time, as far as I am concerned.

Also, i tried to see if i could explain a complex matter to somebody without a clue. I failed that test, evidently. :-)
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 05:10 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
i tried to see if i could explain a complex matter to somebody without a clue. I failed that test

Yes, indeed. You failed to explain it to yourself.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 05:55 am
@layman,
You don't even understand what you say. You don't even TRY to understand what you are saying. You produce a salmigondi of words with no structure, no coherence, no rigor; you constantly misunderstand what you're told; you treat people like ****; and you want me to treat you seriously? Kid stuff.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 06:03 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Einstein in 1920 wrote:
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.

Every schoolboy knows enough to sneer at the ether concept, eh?

There's nothing wrong with the concept, at least from a theist viewpoint. The problem is that since Einstein said that above, almost a century has passed, a very fertile century in physics, too, and the concept was not found to correspond to anything precise, let alone discoverable.

Quote:
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity [but] it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

What a word means, and/or the concepts it relate too, doesn't matter at all. All that matters is the word itself. You, know, like with the word "inertial."
[/quote]
The irony is that the word "inertial" has a very precise and useful meaning in SR and classic physics -- in fact one could say that an inertial frame is the equivalent of ether in SR, and just as good -- whereas the word "ether" has no precise meaning anymore. It's not the luminiferous ether of old, but anybody's guess or "equivalent".

What's your own version?
layman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 07:01 am
@Olivier5,
Ollie, you just continue to completely prove that you don't read but, if you do, you don't understand a word. Look at what you just did! First you repeat this claim, which I just refuted:
Quote:

a century has passed, a very fertile century in physics, too, and the concept was not found to correspond to anything precise, let alone discoverable.


Then you quote an expert who flatly denies what you just said:

Quote:

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity [but] it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.


See that? "Nicely captures." To boot, this is AFTER I had specifically cited this article, and specifically drawn your attention to THIS sentence:

Quote:
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether.



You're incredible!! You cite (after I showed it to you) a physicist who say the ether CONCEPT nicely captures "the modern concept of vacuum space" which is " confirmed every day by experiment," and which IS "a relativistic ether."

http://able2know.org/topic/276564-9#post-5951839

Then, flatly contradiction everything you've (mis)read, you say!!

Quote:
and the concept was not found to correspond to anything precise, let alone discoverable


Astonishing.

Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 08:15 am
@layman,
Quote:
Then you quote an expert who flatly denies what you just said

I quoted YOU quoting him, might have screwed the codes. Still, you should be able to recognize your own text.

So you take for granted everything Robert B. Laughlin says, huh? And Einstein cannot be wrong about "ether"? Is that what you are saying?

Or rather, are you saying that when you agree with Einstein, he is indisputable, but when you don't agree with him, he's a jerk... :-)

I'm not your enemy, lay. You are. You are defeating yourself by your lazy thinking.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 12:44 am
For anyone who might understand what's being suggested here (and who might care):

Quote:
Journal of Physics: Conference Series Volume 442 S A Emelyanov (2013)

Our observations directly contradict the no-aether Einstein's interpretation of special relativity together with the Minkowski's model of spacetime. However they are consistent with the aether-related Lorentz-Poincare's interpretation that allows absolute simultaneity. We thus strongly challenge the fundamental status of Lorentz invariance and hence break the basic argument against de Broglie-Bohm realistic quantum theory. We argue that both de Broglie-Bohm and Lorentz-Poincare theories are capable of providing a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories.


http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/442/1/012035
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 01:06 am
Same kinda deal:

Quote:
Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration Edward T. Kipreos (2014 Dec 23)

An alternate Lorentz transformation, Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT), has similar kinematics to special relativity yet maintains absolute simultaneity in the context of a preferred reference frame.

In the Hafele & Keating experiment, the time dilation was absolute and directional [non-reciprocal], as the flying and ground-based clocks showed different elapsed times when brought together for side-by-side comparisons.

It is well established that the ECI [earth-centered inertial frame] functions as a PRF [preferred reference frame] for GPS satellites...The communication between GPS satellites and ground-based clocks continuously reveals the absolute and directional nature of the time dilation....AST predicts directional time dilation for inertial reference frames moving relative to a proposed PRF [2], [3], while SR predicts reciprocal time dilation.

Dark energy is proposed to drive the accelerated universe expansion, but its composition and mechanism of action are unknown....This study shows that a valid AST would have significant implications for cosmology, including universal time dilation, increased ages and distances for high-redshift objects, and a linear, non-accelerating rate of universe expansion during the most recent era.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275306/

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 06:20 am
Quote:
Sir Karl Popper, reflecting on recent experiments violating Bell’s inequality, writes:
Quote:
It is only now, in the light of the new experiments stemming from Bell's work, that the suggestion of replacing Einstein's interpretation by Lorentz's can be made.... If we now have theoretical reasons from quantum theory for introducing absolute simultaneity, then we would have to go back to Lorentz's interpretation. (1982, 30)

According to Popper, the underdetermination between Lorentz and Einstein, which had persisted for more than sixty years, was finally broken with an experimentis crucis. Quantum non-locality, experimentally vindicated by Aspect’s violation of Bell’s inequality, demands absolute simultaneity.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=82&ved=0CCQQFjABOFA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphilosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fccallender%2Findex_files%2Fphysics%2520against%2520tense.doc&ei=ZTJXVfe_CcrRtQWYhICwBg&usg=AFQjCNFAMhJe1UIK6omD-UlnZaADjvERbw&sig2=JNzAgpa_KNxoo9a3ORbvsA

Who cares what "quantum non-locality" demands? I demand that the pontifications of my teachers be respected, and their wisdom acknowledged.



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2021 at 01:09:18