- #1
protonman
- 285
- 0
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?
Originally posted by protonman
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why do we need Ether to talk about light being a wave?
Interesting in light of SR.Originally posted by David
Einstein wrote in one of his 1918 papers:
“There, empty space in the previous sense has physical qualities, mathematically characterized by the components of the potential of gravitation that determine the metrical behavior of that portion of space as well as its gravitational field. This situation can very well be interpreted by speaking of an ether whose state varies from point to point.”
He wrote in one of his 1920 papers:
”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.”
Do you know what a wave is?Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why do we need Ether to talk about light being a wave?
Wow.Originally posted by protonman
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?
1. Why?Originally posted by protonman
It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation.
Originally posted by protonman
Interesting in light of SR.
If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics.Originally posted by russ_watters
1. Why?
2. Prove it.
Originally posted by ahrkron
Oh boy,
Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.
They said the same thing in Newton's time. Then again at the end of the 19th century when they thought they could explain all the forces in terms of gravity and E&M. No one to any reasonable degree has explained why the speed of light is constant to all observers...etc.Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.
Originally posted by David
No, Lorentz theory and GR theory are well validated. What you are calling SR theory was invented by Lorentz in 1895. He invented “time dilation”, “length contraction”, mass increase due to motion, accelerative effects on oscillating atoms, a speed limit of “c”, atomic clock slowdowns. Einstein didn’t invent this stuff, he just modified the Lorentz theory in his 1905 paper. Einstein cultists attribute all this stuff to Einstein, but Lorentz actually invented it. I’ve got a copy of his rare 1895 book. Why do you think Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation equations in his SR paper? The Transformation equations were published in Lorentz’s 1895 book.
Originally posted by protonman
I have read some of the history on SR and had heard the Lorentz was partially responsible from SR.
Originally posted by protonman
Either way, as it is presented it seems that Einstein suddenly came up with this idea all on his own which is unfortunate. Although this is mostly in the popular media and not so much in science texts.
Originally posted by protonman
They said the same thing in Newton's time. Then again at the end of the 19th century when they thought they could explain all the forces in terms of gravity and E&M. No one to any reasonable degree has explained why the speed of light is constant to all observers...etc.
Why do you ask me a question and then answer it yourself? You some kind of funny guy?Originally posted by ahrkron
protonman,
So you would say that all experimental verifications of SR are just lucky coincidences? what about Quantum Field Theory and QED? (both of which are based on SR) do their fantastic accuracy also comes from sheer luck?
No way.
What is my theory or opinion? I bet you haven;t even read all my posts. I barely mentioend my stance on this issue. I have just raised questions. I am not pushing my particular interpretation. I wouldn't waste my time with your type since it would obviously be of no benefit. I discuss with intellegent and more importantly critical thinkers.Originally posted by GRQC
Self-proclaimed genius addendum:
Always point out shortcomings of theories in the past, in order to villify the orthodoxy (which clearly has not learned the subtle lessons from past events the way that you have) and promote your alternate theory/opinion. Good superficial comparisons include: "They thought the sound barrier could not be broken", or "They said a man could never run a mile under 4 minutes".
Originally posted by protonman
It really puzzles me why only objects with no mass can go the speed of light. The equivalence between energy and mass also is interesting. I think with a lot of original thinking and the theory of SR these things can be explained. I actually have a lot of original ideas but this place (it turns out) is not the place to go to share new ideas.
What you are saying is very interesting. This information is, to my knowledge, not well know at least in the popular sense. There is a lot wrong with early 20th century phyics. The physicists seem content to move along with their theories which are really just approximations. As long as they match experiment they are good enough. They forget the genious of Newton and Einstein. They people thought of themselves as natural philosophers. Einstein's quote about wanting to know the mind of god and the rest is stamp collecting (this is the basic idea of what he said) is the true spirit of a scientist. As I said before there are no great thinkers anymore.Originally posted by David
In the Lorentz theory, all fields put up a “resistance” to the motion of atoms through them. It was he who hypothesized that there is a speed limit of “c” for objects moving through strong fields.
Einstein at first thought this was just a “relative motion” effect, but Lorentz said it was an effect of a “resistance” to the motion being put up by the fields through which the motion takes place.
NASA used this Lorentz theory do generate a current flow in their tether experiment several years go. The long tether cause a “drag” effect while moving through the earth’s gravity field, and when the tether finally snapped, it fell behind the space shuttle, because of that drag effect.
In large-scale universal space, the distant galaxies are not moving through the earth’s gravity fields, and thus their speeds relative to the Earth are not limited to “c”. That’s why they are called “superluminal” galaxies, faster than light-speed galaxies, relative to the Earth and the earth’s local fields.
There is no need for this, protonman. You have admitted gaps in your knowledge in other posts and there is nothing wrong with not knowing everything about everything: I have also admitted where my understanding of SR/GR ends (I haven't delved much into the math). But responding to every probe for and idea like its a personal attack isn't going to help you learn what you are missing. Is that how the kids in your classes respond when you ask them a question? Would you tolerate that?Originally posted by protonman
If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics.
Originally posted by David
NASA used this Lorentz theory do generate a current flow in their tether experiment several years go. The long tether cause a “drag” effect while moving through the earth’s gravity field, and when the tether finally snapped, it fell behind the space shuttle, because of that drag effect.
In large-scale universal space, the distant galaxies are not moving through the earth’s gravity fields, and thus their speeds relative to the Earth are not limited to “c”. That’s why they are called “superluminal” galaxies, faster than light-speed galaxies, relative to the Earth and the earth’s local fields. [/B]
If I want your opinion I will give it to you.Originally posted by russ_watters
There is no need for this, protonman. You have admitted gaps in your knowledge in other posts and there is nothing wrong with not knowing everything about everything: I have also admitted where my understanding of SR/GR ends (I haven't delved much into the math). But responding to every probe for and idea like its a personal attack isn't going to help you learn what you are missing. Is that how the kids in your classes respond when you ask them a question? Would you tolerate that?
Since I stared teaching.And maybe more to the point, since when are SR and GR taught in high school physics?
You are aware, I hope, that russ is part of the staff here.Originally posted by protonman
If I want your opinion I will give it to you.
I don't accept your methods.Originally posted by Nereid
protonman, and David,
Are there any experiments or observations that you are aware of which are inconsistent with either SR or GR? Same question, expressed slightly differently: what predictions of SR or GR are you aware of which have been shown to be wrong by experiment or observation?
If you have alternative theories/ideas/hypotheses with a similar or overlapping scope to SR or GR, what concrete predictions can you make from these? Specifically, what do you predict that is different from SR or GR? I'm interested, at this stage, in any differences at all, whether they are measurable by current instruments (or technology) or not.
Nereid
Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.
Do you have any Biblical quotations supporting your views?Originally posted by ahrkron
I take that is a "no".