oldcoot wrote:
The
existance of such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproved conclusively
by the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887.

No, it did not do so. In refuted the then-current aether theory, which
included such a rigid aether (a continuum, not a "lattice"), but it did
not refute all such theories. In particular, we now know that there is a
class of ether theories that are all experimentally indistinguishable
from SR; they all share a rigid ether at rest in some specific (but
unknown) ether frame -- none are refuted by any existing experiment
within their domain of applicability (which is the same as SR's).

So why was Einstein still
wholeheartedly endorsing it well into the 1920s?

,
He wasn't. The quote you gave was from a conference on the aether, and
Einstein framed his remarks to fit in with the subject of the
conference. The "aether" he discusses is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from that
of any then-current aether theory. It is not any physical substance, but
is rather just an interpretation of GR. Today we consider GR to be a
MODEL of the world, rather than a literal description, and the issue
does not arise.

Claiming that Einstein "advocated" or "endorsed" an ether indicates
complete ignorance of his writings and approach to physics.

The real problem with aether/ether theories is describing quantum
phenomena. Light quite clearly has quantum aspects, and to date there is
not a single ether theory that includes such phenomena, and not a single
ether advocate has even hinted at how any type of ether theory might
apply to quantum phenomena. To the physics community this makes ether
theories both useless and uninteresting, because quantum phenomena are
the central aspect of modern physical theories. And most experiments.

The
existance of such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproved conclusively
by the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887.

So why was Einstein still
wholeheartedly endorsing it well into the 1920s?
,

oldcoot wrote:
The
existance of such a 'rigid lattice' medium was disproved conclusively
by the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887.

No, it did not do so. In refuted the then-current aether theory, which
included such a rigid aether (a continuum, not a "lattice"), but it did
not refute all such theories. In particular, we now know that there is a
class of ether theories that are all experimentally indistinguishable from
SR; they all share a rigid ether at rest in some specific (but unknown)
ether frame -- none are refuted by any existing experiment within their
domain of applicability (which is the same as SR's).


So why was Einstein still
wholeheartedly endorsing it well into the 1920s?
,
He wasn't. The quote you gave was from a conference on the aether, and
Einstein framed his remarks to fit in with the subject of the conference.
The "aether" he discusses is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from that of any
then-current aether theory. It is not any physical substance, but is
rather just an interpretation of GR. Today we consider GR to be a MODEL of
the world, rather than a literal description, and the issue does not
arise.

Claiming that Einstein "advocated" or "endorsed" an ether indicates
complete ignorance of his writings and approach to physics.

The real problem with aether/ether theories is describing quantum
phenomena. Light quite clearly has quantum aspects, and to date there is
not a single ether theory that includes such phenomena, and not a single
ether advocate has even hinted at how any type of ether theory might apply
to quantum phenomena. To the physics community this makes ether theories
both useless and uninteresting, because quantum phenomena are the central
aspect of modern physical theories. And most experiments.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote...

Claiming that Einstein "advocated" or "endorsed" an ether indicates
complete ignorance of his writings and approach to physics.

This paper has been posted here a number of times, with referance to

It shows conclusively that Einstein _had_ "advocated/endorsed" the

Sounds to me like Einstein heartily embraced a space-
as-field theory to me. Space is either something, or it's
nothing. Call it or don't call it what you will, "nothing"
by its very esoteric nature, does not expand, contract,
nor curve.

The real problem with aether/ether theories is describing quantum
phenomena. Light quite clearly has quantum aspects, and to date there is
not a single ether theory that includes such phenomena, and not a single
ether advocate has even hinted at how any type of ether theory might apply
to quantum phenomena. To the physics community this makes ether theories
both useless and uninteresting, because quantum phenomena are the central
aspect of modern physical theories. And most experiments.

Tom Roberts

The physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle. And
cosmology with their godlike BB bulloney fares not
much better. Is it any wonder that scientists have not
found anything to reconcile relativity and quantum
theory?

Because the physics community thinks that so-called
"ether theories" are both uninteresting and useless,
it is paradigmly strapped with both uninteresting and
useless irreconcilable cul-de-sacs. And such will be
the case for many years to come. Just because of the
very thoughts you advocate here.

If you're right, you're right, but whether or not you
are correct, there's no room for arrogance in science.

Not a single ether theory even hints at how it might
apply to quantum mechanics, and yet particle phys.
jump easily onto an uncertainty principle bandwagon!
Shame on them. Posterity will laugh their balls off at
this generation of scientists!

They're not only afraid to go outside the box, they
seem too panicked to even take a peek!

It's been stated here a number of times how the humble and familiar

Your attemps to model photons as waves of billiard balls
( i.e. as perturbations in an aether ) fails completely.

Huh? Waves of billiard balls?? Doh.

All you've done is:
A. Failed to understand General Relativity.

B. Claimed G.R. is wrong ( out of ignorance ).

Never claimed GR is "wrong", dude. It's been proven correct over and

As I understand it..

The coordinate speed of light ( in the far-distant, human frame )
slows to zero at an event horizon of an ideal black hole because
light ( climbing out of the gravity well ) is infinitely redshifted.

The flow _of the spatial medium itself_ *into* the BH reaches c at the

The physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle.

And
cosmology with their godlike BB bulloney fares not
much better. Is it any wonder that scientists have not
found anything to reconcile relativity and quantum
theory?

Because the physics community thinks that so-called
"ether theories" are both uninteresting and useless,
it is paradigmly strapped with both uninteresting and
useless irreconcilable cul-de-sacs. And such will be
the case for many years to come. Just because of the
very thoughts you advocate here.

If you're right, you're right, but whether or not you
are correct, there's no room for arrogance in science.

Not a single ether theory even hints at how it might
apply to quantum mechanics, and yet particle phys.
jump easily onto an uncertainty principle bandwagon!

Painius wrote:
The physics community cannot seem to come up with
any sound quantum gravity theory, nor can they get
up off their dead asses long enough to come up with
an improvement on the uncertainty principle.

Hmmm. I have no idea what an "improvement" on the uncertainty principle
would look like. Certainly the uncertainty principle itself is on solid
ground, as a rigorous relationship of Fourier transforms/integrals.

Quantum gravity is HARD. But you don't seem to understand what that
means....


And
cosmology with their godlike BB bulloney fares not
much better. Is it any wonder that scientists have not
found anything to reconcile relativity and quantum
theory?

It's easy to thumb your nose. Actually CONTRIBUTING to physics is very
much more difficult.


Because the physics community thinks that so-called
"ether theories" are both uninteresting and useless,
it is paradigmly strapped with both uninteresting and
useless irreconcilable cul-de-sacs. And such will be
the case for many years to come. Just because of the
very thoughts you advocate here.

So you have a channel to some God that told you "ether is it"?


If you're right, you're right, but whether or not you
are correct, there's no room for arrogance in science.

Such as your unsupported innuendos and insults above.


Not a single ether theory even hints at how it might
apply to quantum mechanics, and yet particle phys.
jump easily onto an uncertainty principle bandwagon!

Not a "bandwagon", but a mathematical derivation. I'm not claiming that
all of QM and QFT is rigorous (, but the uncertainty principle itself
is quite solid, given its antecedents. You seem to be focusing one one
quite limited aspect of quantum mechanics, without any concept of the
whole picture. That's unlikely to be useful....


Tom Roberts

Ether is something present everywhere

Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.

What is refractive index of Ether?

If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.

IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?

Is Ether Mass Less

Does Ether has a Volume

When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance

Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?

Is Ether also present in Vaccume.

What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.

And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.

Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.

If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php