Ether 2.0

michael65thompson@yahoo.com

<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">  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?

Hontas F. Farmer III

<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>michael65thompson@yahoo.com wrote:\n\n> Is it possible the structure of space is entirely fixed and the\n> expansion of that structure gives the appearance of time flow? If we\n> assume the universe\'s edges are "expanding" at a rate equal to\n> the speed of light, then can we assume the rate of expansion is\n> impacted by the same rate?\n>\n> On a high level, this supports the theory of relativity that the closer\n> you get to the speed of light, (the universal speed limit and possibly\n> the rate of time flow) the less "time" has an effect on you?\n\nHere is what I theorize is going on when we speak of the flow of time.\nQuantum mechanically the flow of time is the flow or current of quantum\nevents. Events such as particle decay scattering etc. If no events occur\ntime would seem to have stopped. The speed of light plays a role in this in\nthat it defines which events can be casually connected and which cannot.\n\nTheories of gravitation and finely structured space time are NOT theories of\nEther. They are theories which say that empty space has structure.\nBasically they all rest on the notion that space is not infinitely\ndivisible and that their is a fundamental quantum of space time\nmeasurement. This is not the same as Ether theory.\n--\nLet me get this straight we "advanced" from telgraphs to email?-George\nCarlin\n\nhttp://www.geocities.com/hontasfx\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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

Michael65Thompson

<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>I\'ve always been obsessed with the idea that no matter how fast you are\ngoing, the measure of the speed of light never changes. The only way\nthis appears possible to me is if the universe itself is a "fixed grid"\nof sorts and that electromagnetic energy is but a mere interaction with\nthat grid, not a distribution of particles or waves. EMR is simply the\nreaction of space to its creation, either from the sun, or radio\ntransmitters and such.\n\nIf we assume the universe is a fixed grid and what we perceive as time\nflow is the result of the grid expanding outward at the speed of light,\nwe can also assume there is a center "block," call it zero. The next\nlayer out from zero would require 26 "blocks," 9 on either side and 8\nfilling in the missing ring, like a Rubiks cube. There are 26 unique\nblocks protecting the center of a Rubiks cube. Is this already\nexpressed in a formula somewhere?\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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?

Michael65Thompson

<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">  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?

Paul Stowe

<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>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:33:30 +0000 (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III"\n<hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> wrote:\n\n[Snip...]\n\n> Theories of gravitation and finely structured space time are\n> NOT theories of Ether. They are theories which say that empty\n> space has structure. Basically they all rest on the notion\n> that space is not infinitely divisible and that their is a\n> fundamental quantum of space time measurement. This is not the\n> same as Ether theory.\n\nWhat, specifically, is/are the difference(s)?\n\nPaul Stowe pstoweblue@ix.netcom.com\n\nremove the color for valid return e-mail address\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:33:30 [itex]+0000[/itex] (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III"
<hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> 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, [itex]is/are[/itex] the difference(s)?

Paul Stowe pstoweblue@ix.netcom.com

remove the color for valid return e-mail address

Hontas F. Farmer III

<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>Michael65Thompson wrote:\n\n> Do quantum events require objects or is there a flow of time present in\n> empty space?\nSorry for not replying sooner. In case you are still interested...\n\nYes. If we take the assumption that space is flat featureless and\ninfinitely divisible. Such a space is the non dynamical space of special\nrelativity, particle physics, and classical physics. If this space is\ndevoid of any particles or fields nothing changes in them. In such a space\nan internal observer could not say how much time has passed. Compare it to\nbeing in solitary confinement in prison. Total sensory deprivation.\n\nOn the other hand if that space has feature\'s that evolve with time. Ripels\nof quantum foam carrying information and distorting the space. Then time\nis seen to flow as the ripples in that space are observed (Let us say they\nare observed directly and cut photon\'s out of the question for now.) This\nsituation would be similar to being in solitary confinement in prison and\nnoticing the peeling of the paint in your cell. If nothing else changes\nthen that peeling paint will be the only indication of times passage to an\nobserver in the cell.\n\nSo The short answer is weather or not the "current of events" way of looking\nat the passage of time is correct depends on which type of quantum\ngravitational theory you wish to believe. I favor canonical quantum\ngravity as a set of techniques. The canonical approach leads to a\ndynamical space time. Then their is string theory which sees things\ndifferently.\n--\nLet me get this straight we "advanced" from telgraphs to email?-George\nCarlin\n\nhttp://www.geocities.com/hontasfx\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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

Hontas F. Farmer III

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

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:33:30 [itex]+0000[/itex] (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III"
> <hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> 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, [itex]is/are[/itex] 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

Paul Stowe

<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>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:27:55 +0000 (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III"\n<hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> wrote:\n\n>Paul Stowe wrote:\n>\n>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:33:30 +0000 (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III"\n>> <hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> wrote:\n>>\n>> [Snip...]\n>>\n>>> Theories of gravitation and finely structured space time are\n>>> NOT theories of Ether. They are theories which say that empty\n>>> space has structure. Basically they all rest on the notion\n>>> that space is not infinitely divisible and that their is a\n>>> fundamental quantum of space time measurement. This is not the\n>>> same as Ether theory.\n>>\n>> What, specifically, is/are the difference(s)?\n>>\n>> Paul Stowe pstoweblue@ix.netcom.com\n>>\n>> remove the color for valid return e-mail address\n>\n> Ether in Ether theory was supposed to be a substance that filled\n> all space and allowed light to propogate.\n>\n> Theories of quantum space time modulo gravity are theories which\n> say empty space-time itself has structure.\n\nI\'m still confused. On the one hand we had the ether concept which\nendowed space & time with structure. That structure was the result\nof the substantive nature of the medium.\n\nAnd then you say, empty space itself has structure. What is the\nnature of empty that endows it with physical structure? In the\nether concept one understands where the physical qualities come\nfrom. In otherwise empty space, by any definition of empty, there\nexists no basis for any structure. But, you haven\'t answered the\nquestion, which was what, specifically, are the quantifiable\ndistinction(s) that differentiate the concepts. My above discussion\nwould/could be consiodered one of these.\n\nPaul Stowe\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:27:55 [itex]+0000[/itex] (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III"
<hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> wrote:

>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 [itex]10:33:30 +0000[/itex] (UTC), "Hontas F. Farmer III"
>> <hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> 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, [itex]is/are[/itex] 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

Michael65Thompson

<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>All very interesting, I love this stuff. In terms of what\nelectromagnetic radiation is (wave, photon particles or simply an\ninteraction with space-time) do some theories match each other more\nthan others? Does quantum foam more match wave theory? Does this make\nsense? Also, please try to use photon and electromagnetic energy\nexamples instead of prison. :-) Also, where does gravity fit into all\nthis? What books provide the best reading on these different theories?\nI look forward to your response.\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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.

Ilja Schmelzer

<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>"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb\n> "Hontas F. Farmer III"<hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> wrote:\n> > Ether in Ether theory was supposed to be a substance that filled\n> > all space and allowed light to propogate.\n> > Theories of quantum space time modulo gravity are theories which\n> > say empty space-time itself has structure.\n\n> I\'m still confused. On the one hand we had the ether concept which\n> endowed space & time with structure. That structure was the result\n> of the substantive nature of the medium.\n\nNo. The structure of space and time in a classical ether theory is\nthat of an absolute Euclidean space and absolute time. The ether is\nsimply some material. An ether theory, as well as a theory of water,\nhas not much to do with the structure of space and time.\n\nAn ether has density, velocity, stress tensor, and they possibly change\nin space and time. Space and time remain unchanged. If the ether has\nan atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving in continous space\nin continuous time.\n\nA theory where space and time have nontrivial physical properties,\nwhere space and time themself are discrete, is something completely\ndifferent.\n\nIlja\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb
> "Hontas F. Farmer III"<hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> 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

Paul Stowe

<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>On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:49:18 +0000 (UTC), "Ilja Schmelzer"\n<Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote:\n\n>"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb\n>> "Hontas F. Farmer III"<hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> wrote:\n>>\n>>> Ether in Ether theory was supposed to be a substance that\n>>> filled all space and allowed light to propogate. Theories\n>>> of quantum space time modulo gravity are theories which\n>>> say empty space-time itself has structure.\n>\n>> I\'m still confused. On the one hand we had the ether concept\n>> which endowed space & time with structure. That structure was\n>> the result of the substantive nature of the medium.\n>\n> No. The structure of space and time in a classical ether theory\n> is that of an absolute Euclidean space and absolute time. The\n> ether is simply some material. An ether theory, as well as a\n> theory of water, has not much to do with the structure of space\n> and time.\n\nEmpty space has neither structure or time. They are both\nmeaningless concepts by the very definition of \'empty\'. Any\ntruly empty void (spacial region) cannot be given, or have, any.\nA medium conforming to the basis of kinetic theory can have both\nstructure and time.\n\n> An ether has density, velocity, stress tensor, and they possibly\n> change in space and time.\n\nRight, that\'s what endows the spacial region with both structure\nand time, as I stated earlier. But this does not lead inexorably\nto any need of the concept of absolute, in either space, or time.\nIn fact, just the opposite. A medium will, as you say, have an\nenergy density, a stress tensor, its constitute particles will\neach have velocity & mass, endowing each of them with an inherent\nmomenta, and, unless one can stop & retain one the concept of rest\ncould not be applied to them.\n\nNow, that they do have velocity results in constant changes, giving\nrise to the concept and measuability of time. Moreover, the arrow\nof such must be one way.\n\n> Space and time remain unchanged.\n\nThey do not. If this statement were true then GR would not be\nvalid. From one point to the next both space & time are malleable.\nThe time at the surface of the Sun progesses at a slower rate that\nin deep space 15 AU away. Likewise, the curvature (geodesic paths)\nare different.\n\n> If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving\n> in continous space in continuous time.\n\nIn what you wrote here one wonders what constitutes time as a\nmeasurable...\n\n> A theory where space and time have nontrivial physical properties,\n> where space and time themselves are discrete, is something\n> completely different.\n\nThus my original question... It remains, as far as I can tell,\nunanswered.\n\nPaul Stowe\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:49:18 [itex]+0000[/itex] (UTC), "Ilja Schmelzer"
<Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote:

>"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb
>> "Hontas F. Farmer III"<hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> 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

Ilja Schmelzer

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

Hontas F. Farmer III

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

Paul Stowe

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

>"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb
>> "Ilja Schmelzer" <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote:
>>> "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> 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 [itex]was/is,[/itex] 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" <hfarmer@alumni.niu.edu> 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, [itex]is/are[/itex] 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), [itex]is/are[/itex] the (as in observable)
difference(s)?

Paul Stowe

Michael65Thompson

<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>Thanks. It\'s been a month since I started this message board. I\'m glad\nto see so many people with responses, but it appears we\'ve gone off\nonto many tangents.\n\nThe reason I called this message board Ether theory was the get\nopinions on what form electromagentic radiation takes and how it\npropogates through space. There are so many conflicting experiments and\ntheories, none of the current ideas seem to hold. The main experiments\nthat consume my thoughts are:\n\n1) Young\'s Double Slit Experiment: Why even if a single photon (or the\nappearance of a single photon) is released through a single slit, does\nit create the interference pattern of a wave? Do photons exists or is\nwhat we perceive as a photon merely the result of the interaction with\nspace?\n\n2) E=mc2 - is the speed of light a constant? Apparently no matter what\nspeed you go, the speed of light is always measured at the same speed?\nIn my mind the only way this is possible is if space has structure and\nthe speed of light is simply the rate it takes for time to move "one\nspace-time unit." This is somewhat abstract theory, it is hard to\nexplain. I hope responses ask for clarity.\n\n3) Gravity: this is the big question right now? If light travels via\nphotons, then does gravity travel via gravitons? This seems silly to\nme. Does anyone have a good explanation?\n\nI look forward to everyones responses.\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>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?

[itex]2) E=mc2 -[/itex] 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.

Ilja Schmelzer

<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>\n\n"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb\n> <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote:\n> > Euclidean space has structure. For example two points in Euclidean\n> > space uniquely define a line, in a way that Euclids axioms hold.\n> > This is the type of thing named "structure" in mathematics. Of course,\n> > this is a rather trivial structure.\n>\n> So does spherical polar. But abstract mathematical structure\n> isn\'t my question. One can impose many different arbitrary\n> mathematical mapping on a void. That was not the question. My\n> question, very specifically was/is, what are the definable\n> \'physical\' differences.\n\nThe abstract mathematical structure of Euclidean space\ndefines a symmetry group - that of translations.\n\nThe requirement that the Lagrangian of the ether has\ntranslational invariance leads to conservation laws of\nenergy and momentum. Is this physical enough?\n\n> >>> If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving\n> >>> in continous space in continuous time.\n> >>\n> >> In what you wrote here one wonders what constitutes time as a\n> >> measurable...\n> >\n> > In a classical ether theory we have the Newtonian definition of\n> > time which clearly distinguishes between absolute time (which\n> > is postulated) and apparent time, which is the inaccurate thing\n> > human beings are able to measure.\n>\n> Science is limited to measurables. Thus the comment. I\'ve read\n> Whittaker\'s book from cover to cover, and nowhere does he mention\n> that classical ether theory demands absolutes.\n\nThere is no need to mention the obvious. Classical ether theory\nlives in the classical world, and this classical world has absolutes.\n\n> It is all about,\n> as you say, the ether medium and the physical properties that same\n> endows space with, and results the concept we call time.\n\n?????????????\n\nThat\'s not ether theory. In ether theory time is given a priori.\n\n> > In ether theories, we have an ether (some possibly granular material)\n> > located in absolute Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous).\n>\n> Is that Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous) not just a\n> conceptual abstraction, far removed from the realm that is testable\n> in science?\n\nOf course. Theories are always abstractions. What can be tested\nare some predictions derived from these abstractions, not the abstractions\nthemself.\n\n> > In ether theories empty space has structure (it is an Euclidean\n> > structure),\n>\n> In ether theories where is such \'empty\' space?\n\nFor example between the ether atoms?\n\nIt is as well possible to imagine an ether theory where the\nether is like a solid which possible breaks.\n\nFor example, in GR we have solutions with closed causal loops.\nSuch solutions in my continuous ether theory translate into solutions\nwhich negative ether density. This is, of course, meaningless.\nIf density 0 is reached, the continuous limit is no longer\napplicable, and we obtain empty space without ether.\n\n> > In ether theories space and time are\n> > infinitely divisible, and the structure of space and time does not\n> > depend on the particular physical state (of the ether or of other\n> > physical fields), but is predefined, independent. What depends on\n> > physics and is possibly not continuous in ether theories is the ether,\n> > some material.\n>\n> This is a distinction without a difference since in such ether\n> theories there exist no empty space and all measurable structure\n> & physical properties are inexorably linked to the primal ether\n> medium. IOW, all of \'physics\' rises from the medium. You can\n> predefine space as euclidian, and time absolute, but, any and all\n> measurements will be dependent upon the local properties and\n> condition of the medium at the point & time of said measurement.\n> Thus those definitions are meaningless.\n\nYou have heard too much positivistic philosophy. It is meaningless\nand impossible to divide theories into observable parts and unobservable\nparts and to remove the unobservable parts from the theory.\n\n> > In theories with granular spacetime spacetime is not continuous and\n> > depends on physics.\n\n> I simply cannot see any physical or even metaphysical distinction\n> between these two except for dropping the word & term ether medium\n> and replacing it with the term space-time.\n\nYour problem. I have tried to explain it to you.\n\n> What, specifically (as in physically), is/are the (as in observable)\n> difference(s)?\n\nDepends on the particular ether theory and the particular spacetime\ntheory.\n\nFor example, my ether theory predicts a globally flat universe\nand inflation (in form of a big bounce) instead of big bang singularity.\nAnd frozen stars without Hawking radiation instead of black holes.\n\nIlja\n\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb
> <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> 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 [itex]was/is,[/itex] 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), [itex]is/are[/itex] 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

Paul Stowe

<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>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:17:58 +0000 (UTC), "Ilja Schmelzer"\n<Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote:\n\n> "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb\n>> <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote:\n>\n>>> Euclidean space has structure. For example two points in Euclidean\n>>> space uniquely define a line, in a way that Euclids axioms hold.\n>>> This is the type of thing named "structure" in mathematics. Of course,\n>>> this is a rather trivial structure.\n>>\n>> So does spherical polar. But abstract mathematical structure\n>> isn\'t my question. One can impose many different arbitrary\n>> mathematical mapping on a void. That was not the question. My\n>> question, very specifically was/is, what are the definable\n>> \'physical\' differences.\n>\n> The abstract mathematical structure of Euclidean space\n> defines a symmetry group - that of translations.\n\nBut again, irrelevant...\n\n> The requirement that the Lagrangian of the ether has\n> translational invariance leads to conservation laws of\n> energy and momentum. Is this physical enough?\n\nNot so. A Lagrangian is an answer it is not the constituents.\nLet\'s take your example of a granular ether medium. Each grain\nhas a momenta. We can \'assume\' a Maxwellian distribution, or\nsomething else, like a Fermi-Dirac. Either way, the medium\nhas a characteristic mean speed, c, and that defines and limits\nits ability to carry and transmit any perturbations.\n\nThus, anything physical that arises from it will have a Lorentz\nsymmetry, not Euclidean. If you want to see a good example of\nthis see Condon & Odishaw, Part 3, Chapter 8, Sections 9 & 10\nPages 3-117 to 3-118. You\'ll note that any wave field around\na moving source is distorted in a classic (pun intended here)\nLorentzian manner. This should not be surprising, since c is\nan invariant for any medium, and any processes solely arising\nwithin it.\n\nOf course, if you have measuring devices that are independent\nof it, and rigid wrt to it, you can discern differences because,\nwrt to such rigid devices, measurements become Euclidean again.\n\n>>>>> If the ether has an atomic structure, we have ether atoms moving\n>>>>> in continous space in continuous time.\n>>>>\n>>>> In what you wrote here one wonders what constitutes time as a\n>>>> measurable...\n>>>\n>>> In a classical ether theory we have the Newtonian definition of\n>>> time which clearly distinguishes between absolute time (which\n>>> is postulated) and apparent time, which is the inaccurate thing\n>>> human beings are able to measure.\n>>\n>> Science is limited to measurables. Thus the comment. I\'ve read\n>> Whittaker\'s book from cover to cover, and nowhere does he mention\n>> that classical ether theory demands absolutes.\n>\n> There is no need to mention the obvious. Classical ether theory\n> lives in the classical world, and this classical world has absolutes.\n\nI\'m sorry but science evolves, as we learn, concepts morph. We\nstill use the Big Bang concept even though it is not at all like\nit was even 25 years ago. The ether concept evolved over hundreds\nof years, with camps arguing for the corpuscular and the wave basis.\nIt was not at all after Maxwell like it was before. The two fluid\nconcept for example was discarded. There is no formal basis for\nsuch a restriction, or any basis for arbitrarily freezing the concept\nin the late 19th Century. As I\'ve mentioned even the so-called\n\'classical\' world of kinetic theory does not lead to any such\nabsolutes.\n\n>> It is all about, as you say, the ether medium and the physical\n>> properties that same endows space with, and results the concept\n>> we call time.\n>\n> ?????????????\n>\n> That\'s not ether theory. In ether theory time is given a priori.\n\nOK, time is fundamental, but arising in ether theory (and I\'d\nthink all others) from motion (momentum/energy) and the changes\nthat these cause.\n\n>>> In ether theories, we have an ether (some possibly granular\n>>> material) located in absolute Euclidean space and absolute\n>>> time (continuous).\n>>\n>> Is that Euclidean space and absolute time (continuous) not\n>> just a conceptual abstraction, far removed from the realm that\n>> is testable in science?\n>\n> Of course. Theories are always abstractions. What can be tested\n> are some predictions derived from these abstractions, not the\n> abstractions themself.\n\nI\'d differ here. I\'d say that theories (as opposed to simple\nhypotheses) are predicated upon predictions that already have\npanned out. Others are expected to logically follow.\nAbstractions that are totally devoid of observation or any\nability to, of themselves, to be observed are valid foundations\nfor actual theory.\n\n>>> In ether theories empty space has structure (it is an Euclidean\n>>> structure),\n>>\n>> In ether theories where is such \'empty\' space?\n>\n> For example between the ether atoms?\n\nYes! But again, an abstraction that is totally outside any\nhope (within the theory itself) of being either observed or\nhaving any influence on any measurable.\n\n> It is as well possible to imagine an ether theory where the\n> ether is like a solid which possible breaks.\n\nYes.\n\n> For example, in GR we have solutions with closed causal loops.\n> Such solutions in my continuous ether theory translate into\n> solutions which negative ether density. This is, of course,\n> meaningless.\n\nYes...\n\n> If density 0 is reached, the continuous limit is no longer\n> applicable, and we obtain empty space without ether.\n\nAnd therefore, logically, any \'actual\' negative density isn\'t\npossible. Negative to a relative norm (like air pressure) is\nhowever.\n\n>>> In ether theories space and time are\n>>> infinitely divisible, and the structure of space and time does not\n>>> depend on the particular physical state (of the ether or of other\n>>> physical fields), but is predefined, independent. What depends on\n>>> physics and is possibly not continuous in ether theories is the ether,\n>>> some material.\n>>\n>> This is a distinction without a difference since in such ether\n>> theories there exist no empty space and all measurable structure\n>> & physical properties are inexorably linked to the primal ether\n>> medium. IOW, all of \'physics\' rises from the medium. You can\n>> predefine space as euclidian, and time absolute, but, any and all\n>> measurements will be dependent upon the local properties and\n>> condition of the medium at the point & time of said measurement.\n>> Thus those definitions are meaningless.\n>\n> You have heard too much positivistic philosophy. It is\n> meaningless and impossible to divide theories into observable parts\n> and unobservable parts and to remove the unobservable parts from\n> the theory.\n\nThe unobservables are, by definition, metaphysical aspects.\n\n>>> In theories with granular spacetime spacetime is not continuous and\n>>> depends on physics.\n>\n>> I simply cannot see any physical or even metaphysical distinction\n>> between these two except for dropping the word & term ether medium\n>> and replacing it with the term space-time.\n>\n> Your problem. I have tried to explain it to you.\n\nI guess you\'re right. I\'d had hoped for some sort of formal physical\nmeans of clarifying distinction.\n\n>> What, specifically (as in physically), is/are the (as in observable)\n>> difference(s)?\n>\n> Depends on the particular ether theory and the particular spacetime\n> theory.\n>\n> For example, my ether theory predicts a globally flat universe\n> and inflation (in form of a big bounce) instead of big bang\n> singularity. And frozen stars without Hawking radiation instead\n> of black holes.\n\nI like physical theories that are devoid of singularities.\n\nPaul Stowe\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">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:17:58 [itex]+0000[/itex] (UTC), "Ilja Schmelzer"
<Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> wrote:

> "Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> schrieb
>> <Ilja.Schmelzer@FernUni-Hagen.de> 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 [itex]was/is,[/itex] 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 [itex]3-117[/itex] to [itex]3-118[/itex]. 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), [itex]is/are[/itex] 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

Similar Threads for: Ether 2.0
Thread	Forum	Replies
The Ether	General Discussion	17
On ether	Special & General Relativity	5
Ether Ether everywhere.	General Physics	1
Looking for the Ether !!	Special & General Relativity	35
Ether	Special & General Relativity	132