Queen Jan has abdicated his responsibility!

Nobody but Einstein. He boldly rejected the ether. This shows the opposite of what you intend. Instead of making what Einstein did seem reasonable in the historical context, it shows how reckless and foolish he was.

JanPB wrote:
>
> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
> > How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.
>
> I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Your nonsense delusions are
> your problem, not mine.
>
> --
> Jan

"nonsense delusions"??? Is that even correct English?

There is a reason why if i see that a film is London based I
automatically avoid it...

How in the world can anyone anyone understand what they in the movie are
saying?? It's like
some form of foreign language no one speaks. "Give me a bell"

I lose track of the movie trying to figure out how does one give a bell
to someone!!!

Does everybody suppose to talk with a spoon in their mouth??? My ears
hurt.

LEARN ENGLISH!!!!

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >
> > > How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.
> >
> > I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Your nonsense delusions are
> > your problem, not mine.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
> "nonsense delusions"??? Is that even correct English?
>
> There is a reason why if i see that a film is London based I
> automatically avoid it...
>
> How in the world can anyone anyone understand what they in the movie are
> saying?? It's like
> some form of foreign language no one speaks. "Give me a bell"
>
> I lose track of the movie trying to figure out how does one give a bell
> to someone!!!
>
> Does everybody suppose to talk with a spoon in their mouth??? My ears
> hurt.
>
> LEARN ENGLISH!!!!

There is one Brisitish/London movie that is a favorite of mine but then they didn't have English subtitles...
it took me centuries to figure wat dey were sayin.

I was thinking of making a remake of the movie...in English.

You know, so that 'real people' can watch it without being in excruciating pain.

Why is it that Google Translate doesn't have London?

If you go to London, and in a train station, don't ask anybody "Which way is the way out?"

otherwise they will say...
"Stupid American, do you see that sign over there?"
"I say, Yeah, I see it."
They say: "What does the sign read?"
"I say, it reads "Way Out"."
They say, "THAT'S THE WAY OUT YOU WANKER!!!"
I say, "You kidding me????"

I thought it was some hippie sign!

dats way out man!

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > >
> > > > How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.
> > >
> > > I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Your nonsense delusions are
> > > your problem, not mine.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> >
> > "nonsense delusions"??? Is that even correct English?
> >
> > There is a reason why if i see that a film is London based I
> > automatically avoid it...
> >
> > How in the world can anyone anyone understand what they in the movie are
> > saying?? It's like
> > some form of foreign language no one speaks. "Give me a bell"
> >
> > I lose track of the movie trying to figure out how does one give a bell
> > to someone!!!
> >
> > Does everybody suppose to talk with a spoon in their mouth??? My ears
> > hurt.
> >
> > LEARN ENGLISH!!!!
>
> There is one Brisitish/London movie that is a favorite of mine but then they didn't have English subtitles...
> it took me centuries to figure wat dey were sayin.
>
> I was thinking of making a remake of the movie...in English.
>
> You know, so that 'real people' can watch it without being in excruciating pain.
>
> Why is it that Google Translate doesn't have London?
>
> If you go to London, and in a train station, don't ask anybody "Which way is the way out?"
>
> otherwise they will say...
> "Stupid American, do you see that sign over there?"
> "I say, Yeah, I see it."
> They say: "What does the sign read?"
> "I say, it reads "Way Out"."
> They say, "THAT'S THE WAY OUT YOU WANKER!!!"
> I say, "You kidding me????"
>
> I thought it was some hippie sign!
>
> dats way out man!
>

Are the British stupid people? Cause in the United States you can buy
Preventive Medicine like Preventive Cold Medicine.

People buy it so they won't catch a cold. Pre-cold.

It's for stupid people.

I think I will get some Preventive Cancer treatment because it will
prevent me from catching Cancer, Right????

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

W dniu 24.03.2024 o 21:36, JanPB pisze:
> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
>> How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.
>
> I am not here to convince anyone of anything.

You're here to bark at the enemies of your
delusional religion; that what it has trained
you for.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > > >
> > > > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How Jan thinks his comments will convince anyone is a mystery.
> > > >
> > > > I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Your nonsense delusions are
> > > > your problem, not mine.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > "nonsense delusions"??? Is that even correct English?
> > >
> > > There is a reason why if i see that a film is London based I
> > > automatically avoid it...
> > >
> > > How in the world can anyone anyone understand what they in the movie are
> > > saying?? It's like
> > > some form of foreign language no one speaks. "Give me a bell"
> > >
> > > I lose track of the movie trying to figure out how does one give a bell
> > > to someone!!!
> > >
> > > Does everybody suppose to talk with a spoon in their mouth??? My ears
> > > hurt.
> > >
> > > LEARN ENGLISH!!!!
> >
> > There is one Brisitish/London movie that is a favorite of mine but then they didn't have English subtitles...
> > it took me centuries to figure wat dey were sayin.
> >
> > I was thinking of making a remake of the movie...in English.
> >
> > You know, so that 'real people' can watch it without being in excruciating pain.
> >
> > Why is it that Google Translate doesn't have London?
> >
> > If you go to London, and in a train station, don't ask anybody "Which way is the way out?"
> >
> > otherwise they will say...
> > "Stupid American, do you see that sign over there?"
> > "I say, Yeah, I see it."
> > They say: "What does the sign read?"
> > "I say, it reads "Way Out"."
> > They say, "THAT'S THE WAY OUT YOU WANKER!!!"
> > I say, "You kidding me????"
> >
> > I thought it was some hippie sign!
> >
> > dats way out man!
> >
>
> Are the British stupid people? Cause in the United States you can buy
> Preventive Medicine like Preventive Cold Medicine.
>
> People buy it so they won't catch a cold. Pre-cold.
>
> It's for stupid people.
>
> I think I will get some Preventive Cancer treatment because it will
> prevent me from catching Cancer, Right????
>

I don't think JanB understands the words "Way Out" in the United States means...outer space!

https://eusigns.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/c3104-way-out-right-arrow-sign.jpg

give me a bell

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>
> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

No, he didn't "disprove" the ether. He derived the LT without presupposing
an ether.

> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>
> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>
> This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the science.

Actually, it shows Larry's "utter lack of comprehension of the science":

If the LT can be derived from simpler postulates that can actually be tested
with measurable results, why would we keep an alternate hypothesis that
presumes an undetectable ether? That wouldn't be science.

The LT is only part of special relativity and the rest goes far beyond that.

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>
> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.

> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>
> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
saw that the aether has no observable properties.
Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
and after Einstein 1905 he saw
that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.

> This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the science.

Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
(by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.
The problem is your's.

There is no point in (for example) having Newton's laws
for the motions of planets, AND to have angels to push them along
in such a way that they move precisely in accordance with Newton's laws.

Some conservative theologians tried that trick,
but for some strange reason it didn't catch on,

Jan

W dniu 25.03.2024 o 13:35, gharnagel pisze:
>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>>
>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>
> No, he didn't "disprove" the ether.  He derived the LT without presupposing
> an ether.
>
>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>>
>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>>
>> This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
>> science.
>
> Actually, it shows Larry's "utter lack of comprehension of the science":
>
> If the LT can be derived from simpler postulates that can actually be
> tested
> with measurable results,

They can be; and - as anyone can check at GPS -
have nothing in common with real clocks, real
observations or real anything.
Of course, far brainwashed relativistic
fanatics GPS can't be real, as it doesn't
fit their religious delusions.

W dniu 25.03.2024 o 13:39, J. J. Lodder pisze:

> Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
> (by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
> It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.

Unfortunately, ether isn't unnecessary,
even your idiot guru had to finally admit
it.

J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>
>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>>
>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>
> Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.
>
>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>>
>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>
> Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
> saw that the aether has no observable properties.
> Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
> and after Einstein 1905 he saw
> that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.
>

There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
an aether?

Maxwell:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism/Part_IV/Chapter_XXIII

"A MEDIUM NECESSARY.

866.] We have seen that the mathematical expressions for electrodynamic
action led, in the mind of Gauss, to the conviction that a theory of the
propagation of electric action in time would be found to be the very
KEYSTONE of electrodynamics. Now we are unable to conceive of
propagation in time, except either as the flight of a material substance
through space, or as the propagation of a condition of motion or stress
in a medium already existing in space."

𝑬𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒊𝒏 1920: ᴁ𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇
𝑹𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity

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 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓.
𝑨𝒄𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇
𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 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 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 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.

𝑫𝒊𝒓𝒂𝒄 1951: 𝑰𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏 Æ𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓?

https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

"Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
According to the aether hypothesis, at each point in the region there
must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical
variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
distributed over various possible values according to a probability law
obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity. "

>> This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
science.
>
> Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
> (by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
> It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.
> The problem is your's.
>
> There is no point in (for example) having Newton's laws
> for the motions of planets, AND to have angels to push them along
> in such a way that they move precisely in accordance with Newton's laws.
>

Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels
pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".

Maxwell again:

"In fact, whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in
time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists
after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, ... Hence all
these theories [indirectly] lead to the conception of a medium in which
the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as an
hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our
investigations, and that we ought to endeavour to construct a mental
representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my
constant aim in this treatise. "

> Some conservative theologians tried that trick,
> but for some strange reason it didn't catch on,
>
> Jan
>

aether wrote:
>
> Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels
> pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".

"But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical
model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation
of Maxwell's laws of the electro-magnetic field. The laws were clear and simple,
the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory....

"the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of
relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last
mechanical quality, namely, its immobility...."

"More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity
does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we
must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction
take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."

"What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as
opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former
is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the
ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential
equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic
fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same...."

"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. 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."

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

On 03/25/2024 08:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
> J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>>>
>>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>>
>> Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.
>>
>>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>>>
>>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>>
>> Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
>> saw that the aether has no observable properties.
>> Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
>> and after Einstein 1905 he saw
>> that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.
>>
>
> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
> an aether?
>
> Maxwell:
>
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism/Part_IV/Chapter_XXIII
>
> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY.
>
> 866.] We have seen that the mathematical expressions for electrodynamic
> action led, in the mind of Gauss, to the conviction that a theory of the
> propagation of electric action in time would be found to be the very
> KEYSTONE of electrodynamics. Now we are unable to conceive of
> propagation in time, except either as the flight of a material substance
> through space, or as the propagation of a condition of motion or stress
> in a medium already existing in space."
>
> 𝑬𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒊𝒏 1920: ᴁ𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇
> 𝑹𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚
>
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
>
> 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 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓.
> 𝑨𝒄𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇
> 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 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 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 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.
>
> 𝑫𝒊𝒓𝒂𝒄 1951: 𝑰𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏 Æ𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓?
>
> https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
>
> "Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
> the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
> region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
> matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
> relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
> directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
> According to the aether hypothesis, at each point in the region there
> must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
> velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
> the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
> suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
> requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.
>
> This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
> present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
> mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical
> variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
> physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
> space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
> distributed over various possible values according to a probability law
> obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
> set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
> aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
> perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity. "
>
>
>>> This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
> science.
>>
>> Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
>> (by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
>> It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.
>> The problem is your's.
>>
>> There is no point in (for example) having Newton's laws
>> for the motions of planets, AND to have angels to push them along
>> in such a way that they move precisely in accordance with Newton's laws.
>>
>
> Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels
> pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".
>
> Maxwell again:
>
> "In fact, whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in
> time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists
> after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, ... Hence all
> these theories [indirectly] lead to the conception of a medium in which
> the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as an
> hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our
> investigations, and that we ought to endeavour to construct a mental
> representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my
> constant aim in this treatise. "
>
>> Some conservative theologians tried that trick,
>> but for some strange reason it didn't catch on,
>>
>> Jan
>>

Einstein in his later years actually sort of stands up
SR as "space-time sort of absent the magnetic field, ...".

I.e., it seems he has the magnetic field as that GR is
what governs, vis-a-vis "electromagnetic radiation"
but mostly only light what SR governs.

They meet in the limit, of course, ....

Yeah, Einstein's "spacial" and "spatial" are two different things.
Then he doesn't need an ether or aether because he's got
"spacial" and "spatial" that the aether's sort of, "among" them.

Anyways, having a fall gravity seems like a good idea,
with regards to a mechanism of gravity, there being any
closed systems in physics and all, and no closed time-like
curves, and no perpetuum mobile.

It's a continuum mechanics, there being right angles
and straight lines, at all, ....

So anyways, the Dirac positronic / Einstein white-hole sea,
it's sort of a thing, vis-a-vis aether hypothesis and what
of course is that GR is a differential-system of inertial-systems.

So, "is it Mach-ian?", and Einstein's like "yeah, it's Mach-ian,
I'm not quite sure how, must be."

And it's like "yeah, Einstein, leaving the cosmological constant
in the gravitational field equations was a good idea after all".

gharnagel:> aether wrote:
>>
>> Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels
>> pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".
>
> "But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a
> mechanical
> model for the ether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical
> interpretation
> of Maxwell's laws of the electro-magnetic field. The laws were clear and
> simple,
> the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory....
>
>
> "the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
> theory of
> relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last
> mechanical quality, namely, its immobility...."
>
> "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of
> relativity
> does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an
> ether; only we
> must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by
> abstraction
> take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still
> left it."
>
> "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
> relativity as
> opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the
> former
> is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the
> state of the
> ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of
> differential
> equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
> electromagnetic
> fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the
> same...."
>
> "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. 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."
>
> https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

Gary (@gharnagel), you have overlooked an important part of my post,
namely Dirac's 1951 note: Is there an Aether?

You can read the note here:

https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

and, the original paper which the note refers to here:

Dirac, P. A. M. (1951). A New Classical Theory of Electrons. Proceedings
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
209(1098), 291–296.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1951.0204

The important point is that Dirac observes that even Einstein's notion
that an aether compatible with relativity theory "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" is obsolete.

In Dirac's words (since the note is short, I reproduce it in full below):

########################################

In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
was abandoned.

Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical
variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
distributed over various possible values according to a probability law
obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity.

One gets an analogous problem by considering the hydrogen atom with
neglect of the spins of the electron and proton. From the classical
picture it would seem to be impossible for this atom to be in a state of
spherical symmetry. We know experimentally that the hydrogen atom can be
in a state of spherical symmetry—any spectroscopic S-state is such a
state —and the quantum theory provides an explanation by allowing
spherically symmetrical wave functions, each of which makes all
directions for the line joining electron to proton equally probable.

We thus see that the passage from the classical theory to the quantum
theory makes drastic alterations in our ideas of symmetry. A thing which
cannot be symmetrical in the classical model may very well be
symmetrical after quantization. This provides a means of reconciling the
disturbance of Lorentz symmetry in space-time produced by the existence
of an aether with the principle of relativity.

There is one respect in which the analogy of the hydrogen atom is
imperfect. A state of spherical symmetry of the hydrogen atom is quite a
proper state—the wave function representing it can be normalized. This
is not so for the state of Lorentz symmetry of the aether.

Let us assume the four components v_μ of the velocity of the aether at
any point of space-time commute with one another. Then we can set up a
representation with the wave functions involving the v's. The four v's
can be pictured as defining a point on a three-dimensional hyperboloid
in a four-dimensional space, with the equation :

v₀²-v₁²-v₂²-v₃² = 1, v₀ > 0 (1) [LaTeX: v_0^2 - v_1^2 - v_2^2 -
v_3^2 = 1, v_0 > 0]

A wave-function which represents a state for which all aether velocities
are equally probable must be independent of the v's, so it is a constant
over the hyperboloid (1). If we form the square of the modulus of this
wave function and integrate over the three-dimensional surface (1) in a
Lorentz-invariant manner, which means attaching equal weights to
elements of the surface which can be transformed into one another by a
Lorentz transformation, the result will be infinite. Thus this wave
function cannot be normalized.

The states corresponding to wave functions that can be normalized are
the only states that can be attained in practice. A state corresponding
to a wave function which cannot be normalized should be looked upon as a
theoretical idealization, which can never be actually realized, although
one can approach indefinitely close to it. Such idealized states are
very useful in quantum theory, and we could not do without them. For
example, any state for which there is a particle with a specified
momentum is of this kind—the wave function cannot be normalized because
from the uncertainty principle the particle would have to be distributed
over the whole universe — and such states are needed in collision problems.

We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
mechanics and conforming to relativity, provided we are willing to
consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in
practice. From the experimental point of view, there does not seem to be
any objection to this. We must make some profound alterations in our
theoretical ideas of the vacuum. It is no longer a trivial state, but
needs elaborate mathematics for its description.

On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
> J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>>>
>>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>>
>> Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.
>>
>>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>>>
>>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>>
>> Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
>> saw that the aether has no observable properties.
>> Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
>> and after Einstein 1905 he saw
>> that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.

In the LET, the aether is undetectable.
>>
>
> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
> an aether?

Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so
velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "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."

Volney wrote:

> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>> an aether?
>
> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
> could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
> but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
> Einstein

yes, but here's another proof the 𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩_𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙩 is a lying bitch, going to
bed liars, waking up in the morning as liars, no change.

those days "isis" was something fighting for their islamic STATE,
revolutionary, wanting kill Assad, or what's his name in Syria, even
today. Unbelievable, these 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮 liars of west are short memory, they
forget their lies!! Pay maximal attention to this:

𝗜𝗦𝗜𝗦_𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗕𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/UdGHUfiMfjNd

clearly a terrorist attack by "isis" and their "islamic" state. These guys
think the we are stupid. Here with arrows, for you to undrestand.

𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀_𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗞𝗲𝘆_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗕𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱_𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝗮_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽_𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/5tboc58SFodU

𝗨𝗸𝗶𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁_𝗗𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗿𝘆_𝗚𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮
𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗱𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗶𝗻_𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/ySiduAYnE825

Volney wrote:

> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>> an aether?
>
> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you

america likely afraid to show the terrorist attack. Simply compare these
two things.

𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀_𝗦𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁_𝗞𝗲𝘆_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗶𝗻_𝗕𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱_𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻_𝗮_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽_𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀_𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/5tboc58SFodU

and the mainstreaam

𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘆𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲𝗱_𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝗸_𝗯𝘆_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽
https://b%69%74%63%68ute.com/video/i6wCi3FywKqK

that's clearly a terrorist attack, with intention to hit the bridge. It's
NOT "avoid", but intention to hit. It can't be clearer.

On 03/25/2024 06:48 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> W dniu 25.03.2024 o 13:39, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>
>> Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
>> (by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
>> It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.
>
> Unfortunately, ether isn't unnecessary,
> even your idiot guru had to finally admit
> it.
>
>

You know it's mathematical physics, and,
though there's a science of the study of
the theories of mathematics, many philosophers
of mathematics have that the objects of mathematics
are objective, and, that logicism and positivism
and empiricism as scientism as it were, though
I surely believe in the philosophy and the value
of science and that scientism isn't a bad thing:
the logicism and positivism are pretty much entirely
subject to the objective platonist realm of the
objects of mathematics, or, "mathematics is ubiquitously
successful, in models of physics".

Your transactional representation is quite pragmatic.

It doesn't quite define "true" or any belief in anything,
yet it's very common and many won't fault you for it.

When DesCartes wrote "I think, therefore I am",
that's noumenal, not just phenomenological, as
with regards to shared senses of thought and the
noumenal, which basically define formal "theory"
at all.

I.e., the observables are in mathematical terms.

On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects
> of an aether?

They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
an aether.

Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
(Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
evolves MUCH faster than religion).

Tom Roberts

On 03/26/2024 07:21 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>> an aether?
>
> They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.
>
> As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
> explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
> an aether.
>
> Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
> (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
> evolves MUCH faster than religion).
>
> Tom Roberts
>

That's pretty involved.

It's like, "magnetic monopoles:
nowhere magnetic monopoles, or
everywhere magnetic micropoles". -?

It's like if there's vacuum energy and asymptotic freedom,
is it Dirac's positronic sea, and Einstein's white-hole sea,
and a magnetic micropole sea, fleeting forever?

It's like, "is it really that particles never actually
collide, only slingshot, or else they just absorb".

It's like light and absorption, and light and transmission,
is the classical model really two super-classical models?

Of course two wrongs don't make a right, and three
explanations don't make sense, yet there's diffraction,
and wave-particle duality and definitely it's exhibited
the wave nature of light, and that the only way that
the impact of a wave as a particle can be stochastic
is as if it's super-classically as of an _infinite_ frequency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=32

I'm still trying to figure out even "higher orders of acceleration".

It's kind of like I read from Feynman about 3/4 through
that podcast, "force is a classical limit", while at the
same time it's a real gradient in a theory of sum potentials
according to the sum of histories.

Then though before that for a few episodes is "logic
and meta-theory" and "foundations of theory", ...,
some weakest form of metaphysics that still suffices
to be strong platonism and not just empirical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyWpZQny5cY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=26

Another thing that's really involved is high-frequency
vis-a-vis rays, of radiation, "all electromagnetic radiation",
this has that light does not interact with electrical nor
magnetic fields at all, it's not electromagnetic.

Yeah, I know, two wrongs, ..., yet at some point "keeping
things simple" has gotten too simple, and linearisations
three different ways do not add up to round.

Mostly it seems that physics does need some infinities,
but only some kind of least infinities, about the continuous
domains, then otherwise how the inner is as super as the
outer, and these kinds of concept are just right outside
the usual grasp of finitude, yet they're still required,
and, especially, in-teg-ral, to the multiple and various:
law(s) of large numbers.

Le 27/03/2024 à 05:29, Babu Mikhnevich Yablontsev a écrit :
> Volney wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>>> an aether?
>>
>> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
>> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
>> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
>> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
>> could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
>> but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
>> Einstein
abu Mikhnevich Yablontsev wrote:

> Volney wrote:

>> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>>> an aether?
>>
>> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
>> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
>> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
>> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
>> could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
>> but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
>> Einstein

Einstein was not a scientist. He was a Jewish theologian, who
understandably did not like the notion of aether. Aether is related to
aum, the Hindu/Aryan/Vedic sacred sound resonating throughout the
universe.
Radiation is beautifully explained with travelling electromagnetic waves,
in the aether medium.
So it had to go, and be replaced with the bunkum quantum theory, particle
physics, e=mcc, big bang, expanding universe and other nonsenses
constituting the presently ruling gibberish "modern" physics.

Well, Einstein that way only continued the main stream of Western thought
against the Hindu/Buddhist Eastern philosophy, which was necessary given
Western arrogance and greed. At that time (19-20th centuries) colonial
exploitation was at its peak. Get the goodies from the East, define them
as inferior on racial grounds, and as a compensation give them some form
of Jewish metaphysics (take your choice between Islam and Christianity!)

So it would not do if pagan thinking (aum, aether) was justified by
science and that too physics. So physics and the scientific method itself
had to be corrupted by Einstein and his followers.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Tom Roberts:> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>> an aether?
>
> They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

As Maxwell said: fields, especially ones which are capable of exerting
physical forces, cannot exist apart from a medium or aether, just as a
mind, that displays physical effects, cannot exist apart from a physical
brain.

>
> As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
> explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
> an aether.
>

One cannot hope to solve such long standing problems all at once. As I
said, even the giants of QM, Schrödinger and Dirac, both of whom worked
on regaining the aether made only little progress.

I'd like to hear from you, which quantum effects do you consider as the
most intractable from an aether point of view?

> Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
> (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
> evolves MUCH faster than religion).
>
> Tom Roberts
>

Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:

> Tom Roberts:> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
> >> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
> >> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
> >> an aether?
> >
> > They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.
>
> As Maxwell said: fields, especially ones which are capable of exerting
> physical forces, cannot exist apart from a medium or aether, just as a
> mind, that displays physical effects, cannot exist apart from a physical
> brain.

To which Heinrich Hertz replied: (unfortunately after Maxwell's death)
"Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations!"

> > As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
> > explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
> > an aether.
> >
>
> One cannot hope to solve such long standing problems all at once. As I
> said, even the giants of QM, Schrödinger and Dirac, both of whom worked
> on regaining the aether made only little progress.
>
> I'd like to hear from you, which quantum effects do you consider as the
> most intractable from an aether point of view?

There is no aether point of view, there are no intractible effects.
Quatum field theory is fully adequate.
All 'aether effects' you may want to invent are nothing but added words.

If I may paraphrase Hertz:
Quantum field theory is nothing but the field equations,

Jan

Volney:
> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>>>
>>> Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.
>>>
>>>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
>>> saw that the aether has no observable properties.
>>> Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
>>> and after Einstein 1905 he saw
>>> that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.
>
> In the LET, the aether is undetectable.
>>>
>>
>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>> an aether?
>
> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
> could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
> but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
> Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so
> velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "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."

@Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and
Aether?", which is cited below too:

The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in motion.

Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
########################################

In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
was abandoned.

Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical
variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
distributed over various possible values according to a probability law
obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity.

One gets an analogous problem by considering the hydrogen atom with
neglect of the spins of the electron and proton. From the classical
picture it would seem to be impossible for this atom to be in a state of
spherical symmetry. We know experimentally that the hydrogen atom can be
in a state of spherical symmetry—any spectroscopic S-state is such a
state —and the quantum theory provides an explanation by allowing
spherically symmetrical wave functions, each of which makes all
directions for the line joining electron to proton equally probable.

We thus see that the passage from the classical theory to the quantum
theory makes drastic alterations in our ideas of symmetry. A thing which
cannot be symmetrical in the classical model may very well be
symmetrical after quantization. This provides a means of reconciling the
disturbance of Lorentz symmetry in space-time produced by the existence
of an aether with the principle of relativity.

There is one respect in which the analogy of the hydrogen atom is
imperfect. A state of spherical symmetry of the hydrogen atom is quite a
proper state—the wave function representing it can be normalized. This
is not so for the state of Lorentz symmetry of the aether.

Let us assume the four components v_μ of the velocity of the aether at
any point of space-time commute with one another. Then we can set up a
representation with the wave functions involving the v's. The four v's
can be pictured as defining a point on a three-dimensional hyperboloid
in a four-dimensional space, with the equation :

v₀²-v₁²-v₂²-v₃² = 1, v₀ > 0 (1) [LaTeX: v_0^2 - v_1^2 - v_2^2 -
v_3^2 = 1, v_0 > 0]

A wave-function which represents a state for which all aether velocities
are equally probable must be independent of the v's, so it is a constant
over the hyperboloid (1). If we form the square of the modulus of this
wave function and integrate over the three-dimensional surface (1) in a
Lorentz-invariant manner, which means attaching equal weights to
elements of the surface which can be transformed into one another by a
Lorentz transformation, the result will be infinite. Thus this wave
function cannot be normalized.

The states corresponding to wave functions that can be normalized are
the only states that can be attained in practice. A state corresponding
to a wave function which cannot be normalized should be looked upon as a
theoretical idealization, which can never be actually realized, although
one can approach indefinitely close to it. Such idealized states are
very useful in quantum theory, and we could not do without them. For
example, any state for which there is a particle with a specified
momentum is of this kind—the wave function cannot be normalized because
from the uncertainty principle the particle would have to be distributed
over the whole universe — and such states are needed in collision problems.

We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
mechanics and conforming to relativity, provided we are willing to
consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in
practice. From the experimental point of view, there does not seem to be
any objection to this. We must make some profound alterations in our
theoretical ideas of the vacuum. It is no longer a trivial state, but
needs elaborate mathematics for its description.

I have recently (Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)]) put forward a
new theory of electrodynamics in which the potentials A_μ, are
restricted by :

A_μA_μ= k², [LaTeX: A_{\mu} A_{\mu} = k^2]

where k is a universal constant. From the continuity of A₀ we see that
it must always have the same sign and we may take it positive. We can
then put

k⁻¹A_μ = v_μ (2) [LaTeX: k^{-1} A_{\mu} = v_{\mu}]

and get v's satisfying (1). These v's define a velocity. Its physical
significance in the theory is that if there is any electric charge it
must flow with this velocity, and in regions where there is no charge it
is the velocity with which a small charge would have to flow if it were
introduced.

We have now the velocity (2) at all points of space-time, playing a
fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the
velocity of some real physical thing. THUS WITH THE NEW THEORY OF
ELECTRODYNAMICS WE ARE RATHER FORCED TO HAVE AN AETHER.

(Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)]): Dirac, P. A. M. (1951). A New
Classical Theory of Electrons. Proceedings of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 209(1098), 291–296.