## Ether 2.0

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Is it possible the structure of space is entirely fixed and the\nexpansion of that structure gives the appearance of time flow? If we\nassume the universe\'s edges are "expanding" at a rate equal to\nthe speed of light, then can we assume the rate of expansion is\nimpacted by the same rate?\n\nOn a high level, this supports the theory of relativity that the closer\nyou get to the speed of light, (the universal speed limit and possibly\nthe rate of time flow) the less "time" has an effect on you?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Is it possible the structure of space is entirely fixed and the
expansion of that structure gives the appearance of time flow? If we
assume the universe's edges are "expanding" at a rate equal to
the speed of light, then can we assume the rate of expansion is
impacted by the same rate?

On a high level, this supports the theory of relativity that the closer
you get to the speed of light, (the universal speed limit and possibly
the rate of time flow) the less "time" has an effect on you?



michael65thompson@yahoo.com wrote: > Is it possible the structure of space is entirely fixed and the > expansion of that structure gives the appearance of time flow? If we > assume the universe's edges are "expanding" at a rate equal to > the speed of light, then can we assume the rate of expansion is > impacted by the same rate? > > On a high level, this supports the theory of relativity that the closer > you get to the speed of light, (the universal speed limit and possibly > the rate of time flow) the less "time" has an effect on you? Here is what I theorize is going on when we speak of the flow of time. Quantum mechanically the flow of time is the flow or current of quantum events. Events such as particle decay scattering etc. If no events occur time would seem to have stopped. The speed of light plays a role in this in that it defines which events can be casually connected and which cannot. Theories of gravitation and finely structured space time are NOT theories of Ether. They are theories which say that empty space has structure. Basically they all rest on the notion that space is not infinitely divisible and that their is a fundamental quantum of space time measurement. This is not the same as Ether theory. -- Let me get this straight we "advanced" from telgraphs to email?-George Carlin http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx



I've always been obsessed with the idea that no matter how fast you are going, the measure of the speed of light never changes. The only way this appears possible to me is if the universe itself is a "fixed grid" of sorts and that electromagnetic energy is but a mere interaction with that grid, not a distribution of particles or waves. EMR is simply the reaction of space to its creation, either from the sun, or radio transmitters and such. If we assume the universe is a fixed grid and what we perceive as time flow is the result of the grid expanding outward at the speed of light, we can also assume there is a center "block," call it zero. The next layer out from zero would require 26 "blocks," 9 on either side and 8 filling in the missing ring, like a Rubiks cube. There are 26 unique blocks protecting the center of a Rubiks cube. Is this already expressed in a formula somewhere?

## Ether 2.0

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Do quantum events require objects or is there a flow of time present in\nempty space?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Do quantum events require objects or is there a flow of time present in
empty space?



On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:33:30 $+0000$ (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III" wrote: [Snip...] > Theories of gravitation and finely structured space time are > NOT theories of Ether. They are theories which say that empty > space has structure. Basically they all rest on the notion > that space is not infinitely divisible and that their is a > fundamental quantum of space time measurement. This is not the > same as Ether theory. What, specifically, $is/are$ the difference(s)? Paul Stowe pstoweblue@ix.netcom.com remove the color for valid return e-mail address



Michael65Thompson wrote: > Do quantum events require objects or is there a flow of time present in > empty space? Sorry for not replying sooner. In case you are still interested... Yes. If we take the assumption that space is flat featureless and infinitely divisible. Such a space is the non dynamical space of special relativity, particle physics, and classical physics. If this space is devoid of any particles or fields nothing changes in them. In such a space an internal observer could not say how much time has passed. Compare it to being in solitary confinement in prison. Total sensory deprivation. On the other hand if that space has feature's that evolve with time. Ripels of quantum foam carrying information and distorting the space. Then time is seen to flow as the ripples in that space are observed (Let us say they are observed directly and cut photon's out of the question for now.) This situation would be similar to being in solitary confinement in prison and noticing the peeling of the paint in your cell. If nothing else changes then that peeling paint will be the only indication of times passage to an observer in the cell. So The short answer is weather or not the "current of events" way of looking at the passage of time is correct depends on which type of quantum gravitational theory you wish to believe. I favor canonical quantum gravity as a set of techniques. The canonical approach leads to a dynamical space time. Then their is string theory which sees things differently. -- Let me get this straight we "advanced" from telgraphs to email?-George Carlin http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx



Paul Stowe wrote: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:33:30 $+0000$ (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III" > wrote: > > [Snip...] > >> Theories of gravitation and finely structured space time are >> NOT theories of Ether. They are theories which say that empty >> space has structure. Basically they all rest on the notion >> that space is not infinitely divisible and that their is a >> fundamental quantum of space time measurement. This is not the >> same as Ether theory. > > What, specifically, $is/are$ the difference(s)? > > Paul Stowe pstoweblue@ix.netcom.com > > remove the color for valid return e-mail address Ether in Ether theory was supposed to be a substance that filled all space and allowed light to propogate. Theories of quantum space time modulo gravity are theories which say empty space-time itself has structure. -- Let me get this straight we "advanced" from telgraphs to email?-George Carlin http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx



On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:27:55 $+0000$ (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III" wrote: >Paul Stowe wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 $10:33:30 +0000$ (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III" >> wrote: >> >> [Snip...] >> >>> Theories of gravitation and finely structured space time are >>> NOT theories of Ether. They are theories which say that empty >>> space has structure. Basically they all rest on the notion >>> that space is not infinitely divisible and that their is a >>> fundamental quantum of space time measurement. This is not the >>> same as Ether theory. >> >> What, specifically, $is/are$ the difference(s)? >> >> Paul Stowe pstoweblue@ix.netcom.com >> >> remove the color for valid return e-mail address > > Ether in Ether theory was supposed to be a substance that filled > all space and allowed light to propogate. > > Theories of quantum space time modulo gravity are theories which > say empty space-time itself has structure. I'm still confused. On the one hand we had the ether concept which endowed space & time with structure. That structure was the result of the substantive nature of the medium. And then you say, empty space itself has structure. What is the nature of empty that endows it with physical structure? In the ether concept one understands where the physical qualities come from. In otherwise empty space, by any definition of empty, there exists no basis for any structure. But, you haven't answered the question, which was what, specifically, are the quantifiable distinction(s) that differentiate the concepts. My above discussion would/could be consiodered one of these. Paul Stowe



All very interesting, I love this stuff. In terms of what electromagnetic radiation is (wave, photon particles or simply an interaction with space-time) do some theories match each other more than others? Does quantum foam more match wave theory? Does this make sense? Also, please try to use photon and electromagnetic energy examples instead of prison. :-) Also, where does gravity fit into all this? What books provide the best reading on these different theories? I look forward to your response.



"Paul Stowe" schrieb > "Hontas F. Farmer III" wrote: > > Ether in Ether theory was supposed to be a substance that filled > > all space and allowed light to propogate. > > Theories of quantum space time modulo gravity are theories which > > say empty space-time itself has structure. > I'm still confused. On the one hand we had the ether concept which > endowed space & time with structure. That structure was the result > of the substantive nature of the medium. No. The structure of space and time in a classical ether theory is that of an absolute Euclidean space and absolute time. The ether is simply some material. An ether theory, as well as a theory of water, has not much to do with the structure of space and time. An ether has density, velocity, stress tensor, and they possibly change in space and time. Space and time remain unchanged. If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving in continous space in continuous time. A theory where space and time have nontrivial physical properties, where space and time themself are discrete, is something completely different. Ilja



On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:49:18 $+0000$ (UTC), "Ilja Schmelzer" wrote: >"Paul Stowe" schrieb >> "Hontas F. Farmer III" wrote: >> >>> Ether in Ether theory was supposed to be a substance that >>> filled all space and allowed light to propogate. Theories >>> of quantum space time modulo gravity are theories which >>> say empty space-time itself has structure. > >> I'm still confused. On the one hand we had the ether concept >> which endowed space & time with structure. That structure was >> the result of the substantive nature of the medium. > > No. The structure of space and time in a classical ether theory > is that of an absolute Euclidean space and absolute time. The > ether is simply some material. An ether theory, as well as a > theory of water, has not much to do with the structure of space > and time. Empty space has neither structure or time. They are both meaningless concepts by the very definition of 'empty'. Any truly empty void (spacial region) cannot be given, or have, any. A medium conforming to the basis of kinetic theory can have both structure and time. > An ether has density, velocity, stress tensor, and they possibly > change in space and time. Right, that's what endows the spacial region with both structure and time, as I stated earlier. But this does not lead inexorably to any need of the concept of absolute, in either space, or time. In fact, just the opposite. A medium will, as you say, have an energy density, a stress tensor, its constitute particles will each have velocity & mass, endowing each of them with an inherent momenta, and, unless one can stop & retain one the concept of rest could not be applied to them. Now, that they do have velocity results in constant changes, giving rise to the concept and measuability of time. Moreover, the arrow of such must be one way. > Space and time remain unchanged. They do not. If this statement were true then GR would not be valid. From one point to the next both space & time are malleable. The time at the surface of the Sun progesses at a slower rate that in deep space 15 AU away. Likewise, the curvature (geodesic paths) are different. > If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving > in continous space in continuous time. In what you wrote here one wonders what constitutes time as a measurable... > A theory where space and time have nontrivial physical properties, > where space and time themselves are discrete, is something > completely different. Thus my original question... It remains, as far as I can tell, unanswered. Paul Stowe



"Paul Stowe" schrieb > "Ilja Schmelzer" wrote: > >"Paul Stowe" schrieb > >> I'm still confused. On the one hand we had the ether concept > >> which endowed space & time with structure. That structure was > >> the result of the substantive nature of the medium. > > > > No. The structure of space and time in a classical ether theory > > is that of an absolute Euclidean space and absolute time. The > > ether is simply some material. An ether theory, as well as a > > theory of water, has not much to do with the structure of space > > and time. > > Empty space has neither structure or time. They are both > meaningless concepts by the very definition of 'empty'. Euclidean space has structure. For example two points in Euclidean space uniquely define a line, in a way that Euclids axioms hold. This is the type of thing named "structure" in mathematics. Of course, this is a rather trivial structure. > > An ether has density, velocity, stress tensor, and they possibly > > change in space and time. > > Space and time remain unchanged. > > They do not. If this statement were true then GR would not be > valid. Of course. My claim was about what is true in a classical ether theory. If a classical ether theory would be valid, GR would not be valid. > > If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving > > in continous space in continuous time. > > In what you wrote here one wonders what constitutes time as a > measurable... In a classical ether theory we have the Newtonian definition of time which clearly distinguishes between absolute time (which is postulated) and apparent time, which is the inaccurate thing human beings are able to measure. > > A theory where space and time have nontrivial physical properties, > > where space and time themselves are discrete, is something > > completely different. > Thus my original question... It remains, as far as I can tell, > unanswered. Hm, let's see: ----------------------------------------------------------------- > "Hontas F. Farmer III" wrote: >> Theories of gravitation and finely structured space time are >> NOT theories of Ether. They are theories which say that empty >> space has structure. Basically they all rest on the notion >> that space is not infinitely divisible and that their is a >> fundamental quantum of space time measurement. This is not the >> same as Ether theory. > What, specifically, $is/are$ the difference(s)? ----------------------------------------------------------------- In ether theories, we have an ether (some possibly granular material) located in absolute Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous). In ether theories empty space has structure (it is an Euclidean structure), but this structure is very different from the structure of theories with granular spacetime. In ether theories space and time are infinitely divisible, and the structure of space and time does not depend on the particular physical state (of the ether or of other physical fields), but is predefined, independent. What depends on physics and is possibly not continuous in ether theories is the ether, some material. In theories with granular spacetime spacetime is not continuous and depends on physics. Ilja



Michael65Thompson wrote: > All very interesting, I love this stuff. In terms of what > electromagnetic radiation is (wave, photon particles or simply an > interaction with space-time) do some theories match each other more > than others? Does quantum foam more match wave theory? Does this make > sense? Also, please try to use photon and electromagnetic energy > examples instead of prison. :-) The example of being in solitary in prison was an attempt to refer to the idea of being enclosed in an inertial frame of reference. The overused example would be a scientist enclosed in an elevator not being able to tell the difference between being on earth or in a rocket accelerating at one g. Or in this discussion without any variance in the environment (due to the environment being empty and dark) no way of telling time. > Also, where does gravity fit into all > this? It is my view and the view of many others that in order to understand space time you must take it for what it is and nothing else needs to be superimposed on it to make it interesting. If the general theory of relativity is remotely correct then spacetime itself can propgate information. No Photons necessary. >What books provide the best reading on these different theories? > I look forward to your response. First read "The principle of Relativity" A. Einstien Dover books 1952 you can get it on Amazon.com for $10-15 US$. Then read all the papers you can pull of arxiv.org about, String theory, Loop quantum gravity, lattice quantum gravity, M-Theory, etc. Read them even if you cannot understand the math (Heck my computer can do that for me) and grasp the much more important concepts behind the math. That is how I learned what little I know. That and college... -- Let me get this straight we "advanced" from telgraphs to email?-George Carlin http://www.geocities.com/hontasfx



On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:00:54 $+0000$ (UTC), "Ilja Schmelzer" wrote: >"Paul Stowe" schrieb >> "Ilja Schmelzer" wrote: >>> "Paul Stowe" schrieb >>>> I'm still confused. On the one hand we had the ether concept >>>> which endowed space & time with structure. That structure was >>>> the result of the substantive nature of the medium. >>> >>> No. The structure of space and time in a classical ether theory >>> is that of an absolute Euclidean space and absolute time. The >>> ether is simply some material. An ether theory, as well as a >>> theory of water, has not much to do with the structure of space >>> and time. >> >> Empty space has neither structure or time. They are both >> meaningless concepts by the very definition of 'empty'. > > Euclidean space has structure. For example two points in Euclidean > space uniquely define a line, in a way that Euclids axioms hold. > This is the type of thing named "structure" in mathematics. Of course, > this is a rather trivial structure. So does spherical polar. But abstract mathematical structure isn't my question. One can impose many different arbitrary mathematical mapping on a void. That was not the question. My question, very specifically $was/is,$ what are the definable 'physical' differences. >>> An ether has density, velocity, stress tensor, and they possibly >>> change in space and time. > >>> Space and time remain unchanged. >> >> They do not. If this statement were true then GR would not be >> valid. > > Of course. My claim was about what is true in a classical ether > theory. If a classical ether theory would be valid, GR would not > be valid. One would not think so. If, as you said earlier, the ether medium has density and a stress tensor, then it has the ability to have density/pressure gradients thus 'stress' in the stress tensor. This would, of necessity, result in physical differences from point to point. >>> If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving >>> in continous space in continuous time. >> >> In what you wrote here one wonders what constitutes time as a >> measurable... > > In a classical ether theory we have the Newtonian definition of > time which clearly distinguishes between absolute time (which > is postulated) and apparent time, which is the inaccurate thing > human beings are able to measure. Science is limited to measurables. Thus the comment. I've read Whittaker's book from cover to cover, and nowhere does he mention that classical ether theory demands absolutes. It is all about, as you say, the ether medium and the physical properties that same endows space with, and results the concept we call time. >>> A theory where space and time have nontrivial physical properties, >>> where space and time themselves are discrete, is something >>> completely different. > >> Thus my original question... It remains, as far as I can tell, >> unanswered. > > Hm, let's see: >----------------------------------------------------------------- >> "Hontas F. Farmer III" wrote: >>> Theories of gravitation and finely structured space time are >>> NOT theories of Ether. They are theories which say that empty >>> space has structure. Basically they all rest on the notion >>> that space is not infinitely divisible and that their is a >>> fundamental quantum of space time measurement. This is not the >>> same as Ether theory. > >> What, specifically, $is/are$ the difference(s)? >----------------------------------------------------------------- > > In ether theories, we have an ether (some possibly granular material) > located in absolute Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous). Is that Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous) not just a conceptual abstraction, far removed from the realm that is testable in science? > In ether theories empty space has structure (it is an Euclidean > structure), In ether theories where is such 'empty' space? > but this structure is very different from the structure of theories > with granular spacetime. In ether theories space and time are > infinitely divisible, and the structure of space and time does not > depend on the particular physical state (of the ether or of other > physical fields), but is predefined, independent. What depends on > physics and is possibly not continuous in ether theories is the ether, > some material. This is a distinction without a difference since in such ether theories there exist no empty space and all measurable structure & physical properties are inexorably linked to the primal ether medium. IOW, all of 'physics' rises from the medium. You can predefine space as euclidian, and time absolute, but, any and all measurements will be dependent upon the local properties and condition of the medium at the point & time of said measurement. Thus those definitions are meaningless. > In theories with granular spacetime spacetime is not continuous and > depends on physics. I simply cannot see any physical or even metaphysical distinction between these two except for dropping the word & term ether medium and replacing it with the term space-time. I keep cycling back to, What, specifically (as in physically), $is/are$ the (as in observable) difference(s)? Paul Stowe



Thanks. It's been a month since I started this message board. I'm glad to see so many people with responses, but it appears we've gone off onto many tangents. The reason I called this message board Ether theory was the get opinions on what form electromagentic radiation takes and how it propogates through space. There are so many conflicting experiments and theories, none of the current ideas seem to hold. The main experiments that consume my thoughts are: 1) Young's Double Slit Experiment: Why even if a single photon (or the appearance of a single photon) is released through a single slit, does it create the interference pattern of a wave? Do photons exists or is what we perceive as a photon merely the result of the interaction with space? $2) E=mc2 -$ is the speed of light a constant? Apparently no matter what speed you go, the speed of light is always measured at the same speed? In my mind the only way this is possible is if space has structure and the speed of light is simply the rate it takes for time to move "one space-time unit." This is somewhat abstract theory, it is hard to explain. I hope responses ask for clarity. 3) Gravity: this is the big question right now? If light travels via photons, then does gravity travel via gravitons? This seems silly to me. Does anyone have a good explanation? I look forward to everyones responses.



"Paul Stowe" schrieb > wrote: > > Euclidean space has structure. For example two points in Euclidean > > space uniquely define a line, in a way that Euclids axioms hold. > > This is the type of thing named "structure" in mathematics. Of course, > > this is a rather trivial structure. > > So does spherical polar. But abstract mathematical structure > isn't my question. One can impose many different arbitrary > mathematical mapping on a void. That was not the question. My > question, very specifically $was/is,$ what are the definable > 'physical' differences. The abstract mathematical structure of Euclidean space defines a symmetry group - that of translations. The requirement that the Lagrangian of the ether has translational invariance leads to conservation laws of energy and momentum. Is this physical enough? > >>> If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving > >>> in continous space in continuous time. > >> > >> In what you wrote here one wonders what constitutes time as a > >> measurable... > > > > In a classical ether theory we have the Newtonian definition of > > time which clearly distinguishes between absolute time (which > > is postulated) and apparent time, which is the inaccurate thing > > human beings are able to measure. > > Science is limited to measurables. Thus the comment. I've read > Whittaker's book from cover to cover, and nowhere does he mention > that classical ether theory demands absolutes. There is no need to mention the obvious. Classical ether theory lives in the classical world, and this classical world has absolutes. > It is all about, > as you say, the ether medium and the physical properties that same > endows space with, and results the concept we call time. ????????????? That's not ether theory. In ether theory time is given a priori. > > In ether theories, we have an ether (some possibly granular material) > > located in absolute Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous). > > Is that Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous) not just a > conceptual abstraction, far removed from the realm that is testable > in science? Of course. Theories are always abstractions. What can be tested are some predictions derived from these abstractions, not the abstractions themself. > > In ether theories empty space has structure (it is an Euclidean > > structure), > > In ether theories where is such 'empty' space? For example between the ether atoms? It is as well possible to imagine an ether theory where the ether is like a solid which possible breaks. For example, in GR we have solutions with closed causal loops. Such solutions in my continuous ether theory translate into solutions which negative ether density. This is, of course, meaningless. If density is reached, the continuous limit is no longer applicable, and we obtain empty space without ether. > > In ether theories space and time are > > infinitely divisible, and the structure of space and time does not > > depend on the particular physical state (of the ether or of other > > physical fields), but is predefined, independent. What depends on > > physics and is possibly not continuous in ether theories is the ether, > > some material. > > This is a distinction without a difference since in such ether > theories there exist no empty space and all measurable structure > & physical properties are inexorably linked to the primal ether > medium. IOW, all of 'physics' rises from the medium. You can > predefine space as euclidian, and time absolute, but, any and all > measurements will be dependent upon the local properties and > condition of the medium at the point & time of said measurement. > Thus those definitions are meaningless. You have heard too much positivistic philosophy. It is meaningless and impossible to divide theories into observable parts and unobservable parts and to remove the unobservable parts from the theory. > > In theories with granular spacetime spacetime is not continuous and > > depends on physics. > I simply cannot see any physical or even metaphysical distinction > between these two except for dropping the word & term ether medium > and replacing it with the term space-time. Your problem. I have tried to explain it to you. > What, specifically (as in physically), $is/are$ the (as in observable) > difference(s)? Depends on the particular ether theory and the particular spacetime theory. For example, my ether theory predicts a globally flat universe and inflation (in form of a big bounce) instead of big bang singularity. And frozen stars without Hawking radiation instead of black holes. Ilja



On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:17:58 $+0000$ (UTC), "Ilja Schmelzer" wrote: > "Paul Stowe" schrieb >> wrote: > >>> Euclidean space has structure. For example two points in Euclidean >>> space uniquely define a line, in a way that Euclids axioms hold. >>> This is the type of thing named "structure" in mathematics. Of course, >>> this is a rather trivial structure. >> >> So does spherical polar. But abstract mathematical structure >> isn't my question. One can impose many different arbitrary >> mathematical mapping on a void. That was not the question. My >> question, very specifically $was/is,$ what are the definable >> 'physical' differences. > > The abstract mathematical structure of Euclidean space > defines a symmetry group - that of translations. But again, irrelevant... > The requirement that the Lagrangian of the ether has > translational invariance leads to conservation laws of > energy and momentum. Is this physical enough? Not so. A Lagrangian is an answer it is not the constituents. Let's take your example of a granular ether medium. Each grain has a momenta. We can 'assume' a Maxwellian distribution, or something else, like a Fermi-Dirac. Either way, the medium has a characteristic mean speed, c, and that defines and limits its ability to carry and transmit any perturbations. Thus, anything physical that arises from it will have a Lorentz symmetry, not Euclidean. If you want to see a good example of this see Condon & Odishaw, Part 3, Chapter 8, Sections 9 & 10 Pages $3-117$ to $3-118$. You'll note that any wave field around a moving source is distorted in a classic (pun intended here) Lorentzian manner. This should not be surprising, since c is an invariant for any medium, and any processes solely arising within it. Of course, if you have measuring devices that are independent of it, and rigid wrt to it, you can discern differences because, wrt to such rigid devices, measurements become Euclidean again. >>>>> If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving >>>>> in continous space in continuous time. >>>> >>>> In what you wrote here one wonders what constitutes time as a >>>> measurable... >>> >>> In a classical ether theory we have the Newtonian definition of >>> time which clearly distinguishes between absolute time (which >>> is postulated) and apparent time, which is the inaccurate thing >>> human beings are able to measure. >> >> Science is limited to measurables. Thus the comment. I've read >> Whittaker's book from cover to cover, and nowhere does he mention >> that classical ether theory demands absolutes. > > There is no need to mention the obvious. Classical ether theory > lives in the classical world, and this classical world has absolutes. I'm sorry but science evolves, as we learn, concepts morph. We still use the Big Bang concept even though it is not at all like it was even 25 years ago. The ether concept evolved over hundreds of years, with camps arguing for the corpuscular and the wave basis. It was not at all after Maxwell like it was before. The two fluid concept for example was discarded. There is no formal basis for such a restriction, or any basis for arbitrarily freezing the concept in the late 19th Century. As I've mentioned even the so-called 'classical' world of kinetic theory does not lead to any such absolutes. >> It is all about, as you say, the ether medium and the physical >> properties that same endows space with, and results the concept >> we call time. > > ????????????? > > That's not ether theory. In ether theory time is given a priori. OK, time is fundamental, but arising in ether theory (and I'd think all others) from motion (momentum/energy) and the changes that these cause. >>> In ether theories, we have an ether (some possibly granular >>> material) located in absolute Euclidean space and absolute >>> time (continuous). >> >> Is that Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous) not >> just a conceptual abstraction, far removed from the realm that >> is testable in science? > > Of course. Theories are always abstractions. What can be tested > are some predictions derived from these abstractions, not the > abstractions themself. I'd differ here. I'd say that theories (as opposed to simple hypotheses) are predicated upon predictions that already have panned out. Others are expected to logically follow. Abstractions that are totally devoid of observation or any ability to, of themselves, to be observed are valid foundations for actual theory. >>> In ether theories empty space has structure (it is an Euclidean >>> structure), >> >> In ether theories where is such 'empty' space? > > For example between the ether atoms? Yes! But again, an abstraction that is totally outside any hope (within the theory itself) of being either observed or having any influence on any measurable. > It is as well possible to imagine an ether theory where the > ether is like a solid which possible breaks. Yes. > For example, in GR we have solutions with closed causal loops. > Such solutions in my continuous ether theory translate into > solutions which negative ether density. This is, of course, > meaningless. Yes... > If density is reached, the continuous limit is no longer > applicable, and we obtain empty space without ether. And therefore, logically, any 'actual' negative density isn't possible. Negative to a relative norm (like air pressure) is however. >>> In ether theories space and time are >>> infinitely divisible, and the structure of space and time does not >>> depend on the particular physical state (of the ether or of other >>> physical fields), but is predefined, independent. What depends on >>> physics and is possibly not continuous in ether theories is the ether, >>> some material. >> >> This is a distinction without a difference since in such ether >> theories there exist no empty space and all measurable structure >> & physical properties are inexorably linked to the primal ether >> medium. IOW, all of 'physics' rises from the medium. You can >> predefine space as euclidian, and time absolute, but, any and all >> measurements will be dependent upon the local properties and >> condition of the medium at the point & time of said measurement. >> Thus those definitions are meaningless. > > You have heard too much positivistic philosophy. It is > meaningless and impossible to divide theories into observable parts > and unobservable parts and to remove the unobservable parts from > the theory. The unobservables are, by definition, metaphysical aspects. >>> In theories with granular spacetime spacetime is not continuous and >>> depends on physics. > >> I simply cannot see any physical or even metaphysical distinction >> between these two except for dropping the word & term ether medium >> and replacing it with the term space-time. > > Your problem. I have tried to explain it to you. I guess you're right. I'd had hoped for some sort of formal physical means of clarifying distinction. >> What, specifically (as in physically), $is/are$ the (as in observable) >> difference(s)? > > Depends on the particular ether theory and the particular spacetime > theory. > > For example, my ether theory predicts a globally flat universe > and inflation (in form of a big bounce) instead of big bang > singularity. And frozen stars without Hawking radiation instead > of black holes. I like physical theories that are devoid of singularities. Paul Stowe