Ether Drag Hypothesis Explained - 65 Characters

[pervect]

I knew my garage smelled better than it should for having an elephant living in there...

#include <humor.h>

Well, I think maybe we should postulate an infinite number of invisible elephants and invisible elephant handlers, each of which is smaller than the last, all lliving together in your garage, in a sort of symbiotic relationship.

Now we do have to make sure we can renormalize the infinites away, but we can look to quantum mechanics for guidance on how to do that :->

 

[juju]

Hi Yogi,

There would of course be a temporal gradient, but I think that the energy comes from potential vacuum fields that only need the restructuring to manifest the energy.

It's sort of like the energy is inherent in the field structure but cannot be realized without the restructuring functions.

A crude analogy is like water in your house. It's there but you cannot get at it until you turn on the spigot.

juju

 

[russ_watters]

Russ - your analogy would be appropriate if there were not so many things that indicate there could be a massless medium of some sort; it is not a case of equal likelihoods, albiet you might consider the two probabilites equal, i do not.

I thought we had already established that this hypothetical ether has had absolutely no effect on any experiment ever performed? What, exactly, are these "indications" you speak of?

 

[yogi]

Russ - see my post #17 - to that partial list, consider for example the standard explanation of cosmological red shift - a stretching of space (its not a Doppler shift and its most likely not tired light). So how can nothing be stretching?

What I am saying is that there are a lot of phenomena that are better explained by a medium than a void devoid of connectedness, but nonetheless exhibiting measurable properties. Recall Hawking comment: "Empty space isn't empty"

 

[ZapperZ]

Russ - see my post #17 - to that partial list, consider for example the standard explanation of cosmological red shift - a stretching of space (its not a Doppler shift and its most likely not tired light). So how can nothing be stretching?

What I am saying is that there are a lot of phenomena that are better explained by a medium than a void devoid of connectedness, but nonetheless exhibiting measurable properties. Recall Hawking comment: "Empty space isn't empty"

But that's a bastardization of Hawking's comment, considering that he was illustrating vacuum fluctuation that's possible in QFT. This is NOT what you are referring to, and I would bet you considerable money that Hawking did NOT meant this to indicate that this is the "ether".

Secondly, you need to look at the GR scalling factor that is "stretching". This is how much space is expanding. However, this is not just two points in space spreading apart, because it is not THAT simple.

Thirdly, again, if you think the red shift data (have you actually SEEN one, with ALL the spectral lines shifted, to make such claims?) isn't indicative of a doppler shift, then you should submit a rebuttal to all those papers that claim so. You have not been able to show any quantitative results that indicate that what you are claiming is consistent with the observation. All you have done is produce hand-waving argument and then claim that, yes, this can explain that too. It is sad if you somehow think that this is how physics is done. Lack of ANY quantitative agreement is a FATAL flaw.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ - see my post #17 - to that partial list,

There are no experiments in that list. Its just a bunch of what-ifs. Could you comment directly on what I just said, please? I'll say it again: "I thought we had already established that this hypothetical ether has had absolutely no effect on any experiment ever performed? What, exactly, are these "indications" you speak of?" Are these "indications" simply the idle speculations listed in post #17? That's not scientific. Its not suggestive of further research being needed. It is directly analogous to my invisible purple elephant.

consider for example the standard explanation of cosmological red shift - a stretching of space (its not a Doppler shift and its most likely not tired light). So how can nothing be stretching?

Who ever said there was "nothing" stretching? Its Einstein's "ether". It is not the classical ether postulated in the MMx. We've already had that conversation: they are not the same thing and you agreed (in post 21). This is what I meant when I said that it appears ether proponents mix the two in a purposeful attempt at obfuscation. Stop mixing these two separate ideas.

What I am saying is that there are a lot of phenomena that are better explained by a medium than a void devoid of connectedness, but nonetheless exhibiting measurable properties. [emphasis added]

"Better explained" translates into 'a universe that operates according to my preconcieved notions and biases'. yogi, I say again: if i does not affect any experiment ever performed, then it cannot better explain anything. The only thing it currently does is satisfy your bias.

edit: regarding "nothing". Why are you hung up on the idea that "nothing" can't have properties? "Nothing" has lots of very well-defined properties! Say, for example, you have a 1m square box with "nothing" in it. Just off the top of my head, its properties are:

-it has a volume of 1cu m
-it has a mass of 0g
-it has a temperature of 0k
-it allows light to pass through at C, without absorption
-it has a Reynolds' number of 0
-it has a pressure of -14.7psi (g)

Seems to me like your desire for there to be an ether is just a hang-up on the concept of "nothing".

 

[russ_watters]

But that's a bastardization of Hawking's comment, considering that he was illustrating vacuum fluctuation that's possible in QFT.

I don't think that goes far enough: yogi, you are putting words in people's mouths (first Einstein, now Hawking) that you know they did not say.

 

[yogi]

Russ - Hardly putting words in anyone's mouth - the words speak for themselves - and the properties you have cited Russ for a volume of space are not necessarily true - there is nothing to gauge the energy by - energy is a relative concept - so is pressure - for all we know space could be under uniform pressure or uniform tension -you would not be able to differentiate your volume from any of the surrounding volumes to measure its absolute energy or pressure. Take Feynman's explanation of the charging capacitor - where is the spatial energy coming from? Or Einsteins distortion of space - the excess radius and all the other consequences of the influence of mass upon space - for GR to work there must be a physical change in something -

How do you explain the Casimir effect - you forgot to include all the virtual photons in your 1 square meter of space - or whatever it is that causes two closely spaced parallel plates to be attracted.

Zapper - you are sadly misinformed as to the current (generally accepted) explanation of the cosmological red shift - Robertson (the same guy that codeveloped the Robertson-Walker metric) first published the stretching of space scenereo about 40 years ago (peer reviewed no less). The other explanations (Doppler and tired light) are held by a small minority of persons (most of whom are steady state followers).

And Russ - all those experiments you keep harking back too are based upon detecting two way isotrophy. Two way experiments will always lead to a null result - by the very nature of the transforms - time dilation wipes out any chance of measureing light anisotrophy in two way experiments. As I said above, when there is good "one way" repeatable data that renders a null result, then the notion of velocity wrt to space should be forever put to bed. I will be the first to say yea. Until then it would be good for the both of you to reread my post 41.

 

[yogi]

Another quote from Einstein:

“...to deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics to not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behavior of a corporal system hovering freely in empty space not only depends upon relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space “Ether”; what is essential is merely that beside observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

 

[yogi]

and another: “...The ether was invented, penetrating everything, filling the whole of space, and admitted as a new kind of matter. ... it was overlooked that by this procedure, space itself had been brought to life...It (the ether) was thus to some degree identical with space itself... In this way the field theory was born as a illegitimate child of Newtonian physics.”

“To become fully conscious of this change in outlook was a task for a highly original mind whose insight could go straight to essentials, a mind that never got stuck in formulas. Faraday was this favored spirit. His instinct revolted at the idea of forces acting directly at a distance which seemed contrary to every elementary observation.” If one electrified body attracts or repels a second body, this was for him brought about not by a direct action from the first body to the second, but through an intermediary action. The first body brings the space immediately around it into a certain condition which spreads itself into more distant parts of space according to a certain spatiotemporal law of propagation. This condition of space was called ‘the electric field.’ The second body experiences a force because it lies in the field of the first, and vice versa. The ‘field’ thus provided a conceptual apparatus which rendered unnecessary the idea of action at a distance. Faraday also had the bold idea that under appropriate circumstances fields might detach themselves from the bodies producing them and speed away through space as free fields; this was his interpretation of light.”

And, o yes Russ - your little volume of space will be measured to have capacity and inductance - where do they come from?

 

[ZapperZ]

Zapper - you are sadly misinformed as to the current (generally accepted) explanation of the cosmological red shift - Robertson (the same guy that codeveloped the Robertson-Walker metric) first published the stretching of space scenereo about 40 years ago (peer reviewed no less). The other explanations (Doppler and tired light) are held by a small minority of persons (most of whom are steady state followers).

No, I suggest that it is YOU who are sadly misinformed. I suggest you read Scott Dodelson's book and figure out what "stretching of space" really mean and if it has anything to do with the GR scalling factor.

This is getting hilarious by the minute. And sad, because you think that physics is done by one's ability to quote stuff. Well, I can play that game too...

"The propensity for quotation shows the lack of original thought" - Lord Peter Wimsey in one of Dorothy Sayer's book.

 

[ZapperZ]

And, o yes Russ - your little volume of space will be measured to have capacity and inductance - where do they come from?

It is very strange that you keep using this and then asking the rest of US to give YOU an explanation. Since you are equally hung up on this the way I am towards peer-reviewed publications, why don't YOU give us YOUR reason for such values? Typically, when one has some wild connection to make, one MAKES it, rather than pussyfooting around on a fishing expedition.

Take up on my challenge and produce some quantitative results. So how an ether model, ANY ether model, could arrive at the permittivity and permeability of space. So how, from the standard experiments that these values were obtained, that any ether model could produce such quantitative agreement. Please ride this donkey to its end and see if it really is an as*.

Zz.

 

[yogi]

Zz - Quotes from authorities like Einstein should be taken seriously. Einstein did not have a model of space, he defined it in terms of some of its known characteristics. I have done the same, expanding slightly upon his ideas because we have new experiments that were not known during his lifetime. All that is being said is that space has many properties - at some point in the future, the totality of those collective properties will be the bases of a complete description of space (or ether - whatever one chooses to call it).

Why are you so hostile and defensive ?

If you have a link to a reference that purports to have verified one-way isotrophy, let's have it. If you don't, say so.

 

[Reshma]

All members--please forgive me if I am wrong.

The sacrosanct property of light was completely novel in Einstein's STR. When asked late in his life why he made such an assumption, Einstein answered he believed in the Maxwell equations. But by 1905 it was clear to Einstein that the ether was unnecessary in explaining the physics of light. Maxwell's equation give perfectly good description of the constancy of light with no reference to an ether.

Indeed the only mention of ether in Einstein's paper of relativity is, "The introduction of a 'luminferous ether' will prove to be superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties."

Thus making a century of work on the ether--irrelavent.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz - Quotes from authorities like Einstein should be taken seriously. Einstein did not have a model of space, he defined it in terms of some of its known characteristics. I have done the same, expanding slightly upon his ideas because we have new experiments that were not known during his lifetime. All that is being said is that space has many properties - at some point in the future, the totality of those collective properties will be the bases of a complete description of space (or ether - whatever one chooses to call it).

But you can NEVER use quotes from anyone, even god, to justify ANY physical explanation. You seem to think such things are perfect all right by your propensity in doing it. It is BAD enough that you completely twisted Hawking's comments and somehow implicated that as justifying this ether business. And you saw nothing WRONG with this?

Why are you so hostile and defensive ?

Because you exhibit the very same symptoms that any quacks do. You produce "evidence" that purported to support your argument with no justifications and no references. Not only that, you go on a fishing expedition by throwing out bits and pieces of information such as the permittivity of free space and then somehow make the connection to the existence of the ether, WITHOUT any theoretical justifications. This is BOGUS!

All you have done is made hand-waving arguments and somehow this is convicing enough for you to adopt the existence of the ether, dispite the fact that there has been ZERO quantitative agreement to anything in existence. And such things are enough to challenge conventional theories? Get real, why don't you?

If you have a link to a reference that purports to have verified one-way isotrophy, let's have it. If you don't, say so.

Why? (i) Have you read the previous ones that I gave? (ii) Why should I produce more when you can't produce even ONE? (iii) I have no desire to make any more concrete and logical argument to counter your stand. All I wish to do is make hand-waving, unjustified, unverified, and vague fishing expedition. In other words, I will only respond in kind.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ - Hardly putting words in anyone's mouth - the words speak for themselves

So, you are now asserting that both Einstein and Hawking were talking about the classical ether in those quotes? Seriously? yogi, you're being rediculous, but more importantly, you're contradicting yourself.

and the properties you have cited Russ for a volume of space are not necessarily true - there is nothing to gauge the energy by - energy is a relative concept - so is pressure - for all we know space could be under uniform pressure or uniform tension -you would not be able to differentiate your volume from any of the surrounding volumes to measure its absolute energy or pressure.

That was just an example, and in any case, I did specify gage pressure.

How do you explain the Casimir effect - you forgot to include all the virtual photons in your 1 square meter of space - or whatever it is that causes two closely spaced parallel plates to be attracted.

Are you now claiming that QM provides the classical ether? Evidence? C'mon, you're reaching.

And Russ - all those experiments you keep harking back too are based upon detecting two way isotrophy. Two way experiments will always lead to a null result - by the very nature of the transforms - time dilation wipes out any chance of measureing light anisotrophy in two way experiments.

Well good - we're still in agreement: this hypothetical ether has had absolutely no effect on any experiment ever performed. So it is exactly analogous to my invisible purple elephant. Why do I keep harping on the evidence? I have a bias (much like ZZ): I don't accept a hypothesis for which there is no evidence. Though is it really right to call that a bias? It is, after all, what the Scientific Method demands.

As I said above, when there is good "one way" repeatable data that renders a null result, then the notion of velocity wrt to space should be forever put to bed. I will be the first to say yea.

I bet - but here's a question I never get a satisfactory answer to: if it is as simple as doing a one-way test, why don't any ether "theorists" ever perform one? A couple thousand dollars aught to get you a couple of hours of lab time to do it. My perception is that ether theorists are afraid of the result.

The past 100 years for ether theorists has been about escaping closing loopholes (or, perhaps, finding ways to stay inside them?). The remaining loopholes in which the ether could still reside are extremely small and that is why most scientists considered it unreasonable to assume it existed 100 years ago.

Until then it would be good for the both of you to reread my post 41.

Indeed:

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc.

Yogi, you don't see it? He's talking to you!

And, o yes Russ - your little volume of space will be measured to have capacity and inductance - where do they come from?

Good question. Write an hypothesis and test it. Otherwise, "Ether!" is just idle speculation based on the "a priori given" that there must be an ether.

Yogi, you keep posting Einstein quotes, but we've been over this already: Einstein was not talking about the classical ether and you agreed. Are you trying to drive home the point that you're mixing separate concepts? We get it.

 

[russ_watters]

All members--please forgive me if I am wrong.

The sacrosanct property of light was completely novel in Einstein's STR. When asked late in his life why he made such an assumption, Einstein answered he believed in the Maxwell equations. But by 1905 it was clear to Einstein that the ether was unnecessary in explaining the physics of light. Maxwell's equation give perfectly good description of the constancy of light with no reference to an ether.

Indeed the only mention of ether in Einstein's paper of relativity is, "The introduction of a 'luminferous ether' will prove to be superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special properties."

Thus making a century of work on the ether--irrelavent.[emphasis added]

Now there is a quote with no ambiguity.

Yes, Reshma, I think you're right: it really is simply 100 years of irrelevancy.

 

[yogi]

In the two papers from which I have quoted - Einstein was talking about an ether - the whole of both papers dealt with his views on the reality of an ether - he was attempting to correct the notion that he did not believe in an ether - and that relativity had proved there was no ether.

Even though to this day many copy cat textbooks will say that SR proved there was no ether - its an erroneous line of thought that developed in conjuction with SR -
There may not be a classical ether - I do not know - but it was not disproved by SR.

WE note there is only one line in 1920 Layden address that was limiting - and as we have discussed before Russ - it was "the idea of motion cannot be applied to it"

So your saying the classical ether doesn't exist - and Einstein said so - that may be what he meant. But he may have meant that c is determined by the properties of space, but the velocity appears isotropic because of the way we measure things. Einstein was convinced that we could never detect our motion wrt space - that does not mean there is no ether. The fact that it isn't revealed by round trip experiments does not rule it out.

You say - set up an experiment and test for one way isotrophy - not so easy - there are a lot of papers written about how this may not even be possible because in order to measure the distance that is required we need to first know the velcoity of light in the direction of the measurment - but to get that we need to know the distance and our clock rate - its a dog chasing his tail. At least as far as lab experiments go - where the source, frame and the receiving clock are all comoving - there is a problem in testing for one way isotrophy . It may be possible to measure the one way speed astronomically - like the old Roamer experiments - if we could get better accuracy - I don't know

With regard to the above quote in the 1905 paper - yes ---one sentence which said it is superfluous - --- and we all agree - the consideration of a medium is unnecessary because of the way Einstein derived the LT ... with reference to observations in relatively moving frames. But contrast this with his later address, as quoted above. The shoe is now on the other foot. In these later papers, we have many paragraphs all about the nature of the ether, with one limiting reference (the idea of motion cannot be applied to it).

 

[yogi]

How important is the peer review system anyway? Rustum Roy & James R. Ashburn (co-author of the 1:2:3 superconductor paper) recently wrote (Nature 414:6862, p.394, Nov 2001): "...many leaders [...] such as Nobel laureates [...] regard peer review as a great hindrance to good science [...] An enormous amount of the best science has been and is run without the benefit of this rubric, as is the worldwide patent system [...] Everyone except the true believers know that it is your nearest competitors who often `peer' review your paper [...] The enormous waste of scientists' time, and the absolute, ineluctable bias against innovation, are its worst offences. `Review by competitors' is an all-too-accurate description of this system, wreaking devastation on papers and proposals [...] ... should not repeat the old canards such as:" despite the problems thrown up by peer review, no serious alternative has yet been proposed." Nonsense. They have not only been proposed but have been in regular use worldwide for a very long time. The users include the world's largest research agency [...] and industrial research worldwide." I omitted many statements - do read the full letter.

 

[yogi]

Zz: Where are you? - there are some famous papers have been published without review. These include:

Publication of Watson and Crick's 1951 paper on the structure of DNA in Nature. This paper was not sent out for peer review. John Maddox stated that “the Watson and Crick paper was not peer-reviewed by Nature... the paper could not have been refereed: its correctness is self-evident. No referee working in the field (Linus Pauling?) could have kept his mouth shut once he saw the structure” (Nature 426:119 (2003)). The editors accepted the paper upon receipt of a “Publish” covering letter from influential physicist William Lawrence Bragg.

The 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik, in which Einstein published five extraordinary papers including special relativity and the photoelectric effect. The journal's editor in chief, Max Planck, recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and had the papers published; none of Einstein's papers were sent to reviewers. The decision to publish was made exclusively by either the editor in chief, or the co-editor Wilhelm Wien—both certainly ‘peers’ beyond doubt (who were later to win the Nobel prize in physics). However, at the time there was a policy that allowed authors much latitude after their first publication. In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that “in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.”

 

[ZapperZ]

How important is the peer review system anyway? Rustum Roy & James R. Ashburn (co-author of the 1:2:3 superconductor paper) recently wrote (Nature 414:6862, p.394, Nov 2001): "...many leaders [...] such as Nobel laureates [...] regard peer review as a great hindrance to good science [...] An enormous amount of the best science has been and is run without the benefit of this rubric, as is the worldwide patent system [...] Everyone except the true believers know that it is your nearest competitors who often `peer' review your paper [...] The enormous waste of scientists' time, and the absolute, ineluctable bias against innovation, are its worst offences. `Review by competitors' is an all-too-accurate description of this system, wreaking devastation on papers and proposals [...] ... should not repeat the old canards such as:" despite the problems thrown up by peer review, no serious alternative has yet been proposed." Nonsense. They have not only been proposed but have been in regular use worldwide for a very long time. The users include the world's largest research agency [...] and industrial research worldwide." I omitted many statements - do read the full letter.

And yet THEY benefited A LOT from peer reviwed process when the Y123 compounds were discovered! They did NOT simply publish it in some webpage but went to a peer-reviewed journal to publish it.

And unless you are completely ignorant of how Nature works, the most FORMIDABLE part of Nature's peer-review process is the EDITORS! Roughly 75% of papers and "review articles" submitted to Nature never even get through to the referees! So to say that it got through to the editors and was not peer reviewed is SILLY! The editors themselves are physicists, and also use other physicists as consultants on papers which they are not sure of. Only when there is consensus that the submission has any merit are they then sent to the referees. It is WHY it is do damn difficult to get published in Science and Nature!

And I do not need to base this on ANY quotes or on a 2nd hand source that I simply cite. I live through these first hand.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz: Where are you? - there are some famous papers have been published without review. These include:

Publication of Watson and Crick's 1951 paper on the structure of DNA in Nature. This paper was not sent out for peer review. John Maddox stated that “the Watson and Crick paper was not peer-reviewed by Nature... the paper could not have been refereed: its correctness is self-evident. No referee working in the field (Linus Pauling?) could have kept his mouth shut once he saw the structure” (Nature 426:119 (2003)). The editors accepted the paper upon receipt of a “Publish” covering letter from influential physicist William Lawrence Bragg.

The 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik, in which Einstein published five extraordinary papers including special relativity and the photoelectric effect. The journal's editor in chief, Max Planck, recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and had the papers published; none of Einstein's papers were sent to reviewers. The decision to publish was made exclusively by either the editor in chief, or the co-editor Wilhelm Wien—both certainly ‘peers’ beyond doubt (who were later to win the Nobel prize in physics). However, at the time there was a policy that allowed authors much latitude after their first publication. In a recent editorial in Nature, it was stated that “in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.”

Watson and Crick: Refer to my response on how Nature works, thankyouverymuch. Secondly, I was asking for example in physics.

And now, to Einstein's paper. The fact that you somehow disassociate the "peer-reviewed" process as not including the responsibility of the editors is astonishing. Before the system that we have today, editors of physics journals WERE the referees! There weren't a gazillion papers being submitted per day back then as there is today. Editors were (and still are in Science and Nature) a dominant part of the peer-review process! The editors were physicists and experts in the field that they are editing and reviewing, unlike you!

You should learn to discriminate your source of info and not gather them from the same one that told you that de Broglie's idea never appeared in any peer-reviewed journal (remember that sillyness?).

I notice that you did not even address a distinct point I made about your lack of ability to make any quantitative prediction to justify your fishing expeditions. This has now deteorated (as is often the case with quackeries) into justifying the peer-reviewed journals. The point still stand: ALL physics ideas and discoveries that have ever made any significant impact on the advancement of physics knowledge with the past 100 years or so have ALL appeared in peer-reviewed journals without exception. Even when you tried to sneak in something from Biology, it still didn't work!

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

yogi - post 68, you're talking in circles. Again, mixing the classical ether with Einstein's ether. Again, putting words in Einstein's mouth he didn't say ("he may have meant..."). Again, arguing against the process instead of working within it (it works!). Again, talking about loopholes instead of positive evidence. Even finding reasons not to do the experiment you say would prove the ether exists (you don't need to use the speed of light to measure the distance - you don't even need to measure the distance at all, just the time in both directions.)! Its surreal, but worse its unproductive. 100 years of wasted effort and counting. That's all for now - got to go feed my elephant.

 

[Chronos]

... WE note there is only one line in 1920 Layden address that was limiting - and as we have discussed before Russ - it was "the idea of motion cannot be applied to it"

I think you may have missed the point, Yogi. In the Leiden speech, Einstein concluded with this:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
If you read between the lines, Einstein just christened the HMS Aether and launched her into the sea of unphysicality.

 

[yogi]

Chronos - as to what you have pointed out - take a look at that part of post 59 again:

"...what is essential is merely that beside observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real."

When Einstein says the ether is not endowed with the quality characteristics of ponderable media - does he mean it doesn't have mass or density like all fluid or solid mediums with which we are familiar - or does he mean something else - In some of his other works he uses the phrase "ponderable mass" in connection with that which has more to due with quantity than concept.

You are of course entitled to put any spin you want upon Einstein's words - but from my viewpoint, the amount of effort expended in the two articles I have quoted that are directed to describing the properties of space are indicative of Einsteins view that the ether is something real - he was attempting to correct the impression that SR implied it was non-existent .. and, again, in my opinion, these descriptions were more significant than the few words directed to qualifying its limitations. Nowhere does Einstien say that the velocity of light in freespace is not governed by Maxwell's laws - which is consequent to the permittivity and permeability of space. We observe the round trip velocity as c, an observation that is independent of the properties of any medium. But the operative word is "observe"
How do you interpret the words: ...w/o an ether there would be no propagation of light..."

Russ - you are missing the point - you don't measure the time in two directions in a one way experiment. Go feed your elephant.

Zz - Editor review is not the same as the peer review process - the editor cannot possibly be expected to be familiar with all the different areas of science that would be put before him - the editor's function is different. Einstein's STR would never pass peer review by todays standards because it was too outrageous - one of the reasons the Nobel committee rejected it for a prize. If I am not mistaken, Friedmann's article was also published in a non-peer reviewed journel - as was FitzGerald's.

Each week Thousand of Patents are issued world wide - many contain new physics that have never been reviewed by anyone - and out of that body of knowledge comes most of the benefits put into practice.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz - Editor review is not the same as the peer review process - the editor cannot possibly be expected to be familiar with all the different areas of science that would be put before him - the editor's function is different. Einstein's STR would never pass peer review by todays standards because it was too outrageous - one of the reasons the Nobel committee rejected it for a prize. If I am not mistaken, Friedmann's article was also published in a non-peer reviewed journel - as was FitzGerald's.

Each week Thousand of Patents are issued world wide - many contain new physics that have never been reviewed by anyone - and out of that body of knowledge comes most of the benefits put into practice.

That's a load of CROCK! I asked for anything that hasn't APPEARED in a peer-reviewed journal. You have turned this around and REDEFINED what I meant and said by restricting this to only things that has been REFEREED. No WONDER you do not feel any qualm around redefining the ether any damn way you please since this obviously is something you do often!

I have witnessed MANY important ideas that were given birth to NOT in peer-reviewed jouranal, be it in conferences, or conference proceedings. But EVENTUALLY, such ideas will, without fail, appear in peer-reviewed journals! The sillyness of your claim seems to imply that no revolutionary ideas would appear an peer-reviewed journals, in spite of the fact that a Nature journal editor personally told me that they are more likely to look favorably upon papers that either contradicts major physics ideas, produces unexpected discovery, or completely blow away existing understanding.

Peer-review process includes the WHOLE process. You can't pick and choose whatever you want the way you are picking through bits and pieces of physics info to suit your needs. If you do not think the editors of Nature and Science play a SIGNIFICANT role in evaluating submitted papers (especially in physics), why don't you try sending in one. I suggest it should be on this ether creature that you've been working on.

I am still waiting for the "quantitative" agreement of your ether with your fishing expedition.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ - you are missing the point - you don't measure the time in two directions in a one way experiment.

?? Place two clocks a disance apart (any distance) and send one way pulses in each direction, comparing the time each clock reads. If the one-way times measured are different, you've found the anisotropy you are looking for.

In fact, GPS clocks are kept in sync with a similar method. If the signal sent from the satellite to the ground and the signal sent from the ground to the satellite traveled at different speeds, the clocks would not be able to be synchronized.

When Einstein says the ether is not endowed with the quality characteristics of ponderable media - does he mean it doesn't have mass or density like all fluid or solid mediums with which we are familiar - or does he mean something else - In some of his other works he uses the phrase "ponderable mass" in connection with that which has more to due with quantity than concept.

This is yet another case of you wanting to have your cake and eat it too (simultaneously wanting to agree with and disagree with einstein). There is no controversy in the scientific community over what Einstein meant.

 

[yogi]

Zz - whether an idea is first disclosed to a peer reviewed journel and rejected then later publicised by some method other than a peer reviewed journel, and later becomes acknowledged as having merit - and then published in a peer reviewed journel is not what is being criticised - what is of concern is the rejection of good ideas by someone who does not think they are in conformity with his particular bias - Einstein's SR paper would likely have been rejected by todays standards - and he may have turned away from publication and not sought an alternative - the world would have lost a great idea. I wonder how many great ideas have been lost because of bias.

And what is the name of the nature editor to whom you are referring?

Russ - the difficulty involved in making one way experiments in a free space environment is well known. Where do I disagree with Einstein - I have said that one way light speed has not been verified in free space. Take a look at Zhang's book "Experimental bases of Special Relativity"

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz - whether an idea is first disclosed to a peer reviewed journel and rejected then later publicised by some method other than a peer reviewed journel, and later becomes acknowledged as having merit - and then published in a peer reviewed journel is not what is being criticised - what is of concern is the rejection of good ideas by someone who does not think they are in conformity with his particular bias - Einstein's SR paper would likely have been rejected by todays standards - and he may have turned away from publication and not sought an alternative - the world would have lost a great idea. I wonder how many great ideas have been lost because of bias.

And that last part, you're doing nothing more than empty speculating. And since we're talking about Nature, how come you completely missed Dan Koshland article in Nature last November?[1] He is one clear example of a non-conformist and had difficulty in getting his idea published, but he did eventually! Since you like to play quote-the-scientist very much, take this:

The existence of multiple journals provides the final safeguard against too much conservatism and is the ultimate reason that science is more receptive to non-conformity than any other segment of our society... Non-conformity is looked on with more hostility by religion, government and culture than science - because each of them is more vulnerable to change than science is.

As I've said before, if marginally dubious results such as the Podkletnov effect, and even the Fleishmann and Pons "cold fusion" report can appear in peer-reviewed journals, then your claim that rejection of non-conforming ideas is something commonly done is pure GUESS WORK. As usual, you have offered ZERO evidence. I can rattle off a bunch of other ground-breaking advancement that appeared in peer-reviewed journals. It is the nature of physics to continually push the envelope and study NEW things - we are not hired to reproduce and reverify things that we already know to work! Just open ANY issue of PRL or Science or Nature and verify this yourself!

So, if even disputable ideas can sometime get into such journals, and yours can't, I'm sure you're "smart" enough to draw your own conclusion regarding the validity of such an idea.

[still waiting for quantitative results and proper citations]

Zz.

[1] D.E. Koshland, Nature, v.432, p.447 (2004).

 

[Chronos]

The Koshland article is very on the money. In the end, science is science. If you have the observational evidence and math to back it, no idea will be summarily dismissed. No journal editor wants to be scooped by another journal. If anything, they take more than reasonable risks in selecting new works for publication - e.g., Nature.

 

[yogi]

I would agree that with the large number of competing scientific publications, most reasonable ideas will find a home. But I would also wager that SR would be rejected by most scientific publications today if we had not already come to accept what Wheeler calls the preposterous idea that light always passes an observer at the same velocity. Can I prove it - of course not.

The subject of this thread was (past tense) ether drag - we all agree there is no evidence of ether drag - but the rebuke of the concept was not based upon the absence of evidence of entrainment, but rather upon no ether. Of course if there is no ether there is nothing to drag. But it does not follow that because there is no drag, there is no ether. And that was my point - and it still is. If Einstein believed that an ether was necessary for the propagation of light - then so do I.

 

[ZapperZ]

I would agree that with the large number of competing scientific publications, most reasonable ideas will find a home. But I would also wager that SR would be rejected by most scientific publications today if we had not already come to accept what Wheeler calls the preposterous idea that light always passes an observer at the same velocity. Can I prove it - of course not.

Which is just the way you like it. If you can't prove it, then you should have just shut up and not brought it up. What's the point in speculating IF Einstein's idea would be rejected. I have equal grounds (if not MORE) to say that it WOULD have been published based on all the whacky ideas that DID get published. So such discussion, which YOU brought up, is MOOT and a waste of time!

The subject of this thread was (past tense) ether drag - we all agree there is no evidence of ether drag - but the rebuke of the concept was not based upon the absence of evidence of entrainment, but rather upon no ether. Of course if there is no ether there is nothing to drag. But it does not follow that because there is no drag, there is no ether. And that was my point - and it still is. If Einstein believed that an ether was necessary for the propagation of light - then so do I.

And you of course ignored the quote attributed to Einstein that essentially deemed the ether as unnecessary. TYPICAL!

But this is still besides the point. You still seem to think that physics is done based on who collects what quotes. This is pure garbage. Einstein, of all people, believe MORE in observations than anything else. And the best that you can do to insinuate the existence of the ether is to go on a fishing expedition to throw out values for the permittivity and permeability of free space. Even Einstein didn't make such connection! Do you think he was too dumb to see such an obvious thing like that that was staring right in everybody's face?

But do you know why there is no ether? It's simple. It is because YOU can't define it. You cannot tell how it behaves, what physical qualities and quantities that it has, and what set of properties it posesses. In this sense, the classical ether is MORE REAL than YOUR ether. At the very least, the classical ether was well defined. People know what it is supposed to do, and how it is supposed to do it. It allows for its properties and effects to be measured and falsified. And falsified it was! This "ether" you are trying to sell is a figment of your imagination. It has more shifty and vague spins to it than a politician caught in a brothel. You can't even point to one single published paper that would define and clarify what you meant by this ether. And yet, you "believed" it, and not only that, you are trying to sell it to everyone else.

And still, you do not see what's wrong with this picture? Puhleeze!

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Where do I disagree with Einstein...

If Einstein believed that an ether was necessary for the propagation of light - then so do I.

Doubletalk, and you know it. I've pointed it out half a dozen times now and you agreed. From now on, I'll just put the initials of the point, every time you say it: ENEVCE (Einstein's New Ether Vs the Classical Ether).

Ether drag and the MMx is about the classical ("lumiferous") ether, which Einstein specifically said is superfluous. You favor the classical ether (or something that looks a lot like it) and Einstein did not. Therefore, you disagree with Einstein.

 

[russ_watters]

But do you know why there is no ether? It's simple. It is because YOU can't define it. You cannot tell how it behaves, what physical qualities and quantities that it has, and what set of properties it posesses. In this sense, the classical ether is MORE REAL than YOUR ether. At the very least, the classical ether was well defined. People know what it is supposed to do, and how it is supposed to do it. It allows for its properties and effects to be measured and falsified. And falsified it was! This "ether" you are trying to sell is a figment of your imagination. It has more shifty and vague spins to it than a politician caught in a brothel. You can't even point to one single published paper that would define and clarify what you meant by this ether. And yet, you "believed" it, and not only that, you are trying to sell it to everyone else.

And still, you do not see what's wrong with this picture? Puhleeze!

Zz.

Well put. This is starting to get old...

 

[russ_watters]

The subject of this thread was (past tense) ether drag - we all agree there is no evidence of ether drag - but the rebuke of the concept was not based upon the absence of evidence of entrainment, but rather upon no ether. Of course if there is no ether there is nothing to drag. But it does not follow that because there is no drag, there is no ether. And that was my point - and it still is.

And that point is simply wrong, as we've discussed. The ether was postulated to exist and predicted to have certain properties. One such property was that you could drag it. If an experiment (observation) designed to detect the ether drag fails (post 2 of the thread), then that is another nail in the coffin for the ether itself.

It goes like this:

-I propose an ether with the property (behavior) "ether drag" (this is, as we discussed and you agreed, a property of the classical ether but not Einstein's ether).
-I observe that "ether drag" does not exist.
-I conclude my ether does not exist.

 

[yogi]

Wrong Russ - the ether drag hypo was postulated as an attempt to explain MMx - the ether had long been proposed - the drag hypo was an incorrect idea - had nothing to do with the merits of the ether. In fact it was proved wrong by aberration even before it was invented.

Zz - why is your guess as to whether SR would be accepted by Physics Review or Nature or Scientific American any better than mine -

Einstein said the ether was superfluous to his 1905 derivation - in 1920 he said it was essential for the progagation of light - read again the last paragraph of the Leiden address. How can you all deny the plain meaning of what he said.

 

[ZapperZ]

Wrong Russ - the ether drag hypo was postulated as an attempt to explain MMx - the ether had long been proposed - the drag hypo was an incorrect idea - had nothing to do with the merits of the ether. In fact it was proved wrong by aberration even before it was invented.

Zz - why is your guess as to whether SR would be accepted by Physics Review or Nature or Scientific American any better than mine -

Einstein said the ether was superfluous to his 1905 derivation - in 1920 he said it was essential for the progagation of light - read again the last paragraph of the Leiden address. How can you all deny the plain meaning of what he said.

And you said that I have this hang up about peer-reviewed journals? It looks like you have an unhealthy obsession with Einstein's quotations!

Read my lips (or my typing fingers): Science is NOT done via a series of quotations.

If ALL you are able to do is quote someone else's words, and this is ALL you are basing your "belief" on, then you are in the wrong area of the web. You want "religion by the book" web section where they BLINDLY obey and follow the words of other messiahs. Here, they'll counter any physical evidence by citing phrases off such holy books. Not only that, they also think this is a VALID means of discussing and countering any ideas. I think you'll be happier there since they're doing exactly what you are doing here.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Wrong Russ - the ether drag hypo was postulated as an attempt to explain MMx - the ether had long been proposed -

That does not contradict what I said: ether drag was essentially a loophole (we've discussed this before) in which the ether still could reside after the failure of the MMx. After the failure of the MMx, ether proponents were looking for a way that they could hold on to the ether - ether drag was the loophole they needed to avoid abandoning an idea that had already failed. The failure of MMx was one strike against the ether, the ether drag postulate was another separate one. With the loopholes getting smaller and smaller, most scientists consider it pumping a dry well to continue postulating that it exists (most decided that after the failure of the MMx).

the drag hypo was an incorrect idea - had nothing to do with the merits of the ether. In fact it was proved wrong by aberration even before it was invented.

Yeah, it does have something to do with whether or not the ether exists: had ether drag been found to be real, then the ether, would have also been proven to exist. Since ether drag is flawed, the ether postulate is still empty.

How can you all deny the plain meaning of what he said.

Some people, yogi, faced with everyone saying they are wrong might consider re-examining their ideas to see if its possible that the rest of the scientific community might be right. As I've said before, there is no controversy in the general scientific community over the interpretation of those Einstein quotes.

 

[marlon]

Pff, this is a very exhausting thread

marlon

 

[yogi]

Russ - i will agree that the ether drag was an attempt to save the ether - but it didn't need saving since (as I keep saying and you and your immature friend continue to ignor or misinterpret) SR did not depend upon the existence of an ether or any properties of space whatsoever. SR is strictly observational relational. MMx and other over and back experiments do not disclose anything about the ether - the null result depends from time dilation.

Third call for an answer as to what Einstein meant when he said an ether is necessary for the progagation of light (Last paragraph of his Leiden address).

 

[russ_watters]

Russ - i will agree that the ether drag was an attempt to save the ether - but it didn't need saving since (as I keep saying and you and your immature friend continue to ignor or misinterpret) SR did not depend upon the existence of an ether or any properties of space whatsoever.

We're not ignoring that, that's the entire point. Because of the failure of the MMx, the ether wasn't so much dead as it was superfluous. So we kinda agree - the ether didn't need saving - we just disagree on why: the ether didn't need saving since it was never alive in the first place.

However, if the ether existed, it would need to be incorporated into SR: it would need to be incorporated into the second postulate. (hold that thought - further discussion later)

SR is strictly observational relational. MMx and other over and back experiments do not disclose anything about the ether - the null result depends from time dilation.

That's the loophole-searching we discussed before. The MMX was specifically designed to detect the ether and when it didn't detect it, it became a piece of evidence against the existence of the ether.

Third call for an answer as to what Einstein meant when he said an ether is necessary for the progagation of light (Last paragraph of his Leiden address).

Third call? We've discussed it already. You continuously lump any mention of the word "ether" together into your undefined "ether" that smells like the classical ether even when you specifically agreed that it can't be.

Regarding the Leyden address - I must admit to never having read the full text (just that last paragraph taken out of context, and even then I never had trouble understanding the distinction you're refusing to draw: ENEVCE). I have now.

http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/ether/etherEinstein.htm is the full text. Its essentially a history of he ether and its evolution. He even specifically labels different concepts of the ether ("Hertz's ether", for example). It is crystal clear that there is more than one "ether" being descussed there and crystal clear that the ether in SR is not the classical ether. Quotes such as: "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz..." are obviously talking about different concepts of what an "ether" might be. Its your usual mistake: ENEVCE. And yet you still refuse to differentiate. My god, he even calls it "the new ether" (I didn't know that when I started saying it). Far from even being vague or tough to interpret, the interpretation you hold is so clearly, straightforwardly wrong its amazing that you could even say it with a straight face.

Reading more of your previous post, I see a clarification in your point:

Einstein said the ether was superfluous to his 1905 derivation - in 1920 he said it was essential for the progagation of light...

You think Einstein made a mistake in 1905 and changed his mind in 1920. Setting aside the fact that Einstein still used the word "superfluous" in the Leyden address to characterize the relationship between SR and the classical (lumiferous) ether and setting aside that you're mis-paraphrasing him (in 1905, he referred to "the lumiferous ether", in 1920, he referred to "the new ether", and again ENEVCE) (and, I'm going to sound like ZZ here...), if Einstein had made a mistake and changed his mind, where can I find a specific retraction/correction of his 1905 paper? Einstein was famous for his personality as much for his science - he was open to admitting mistakes (as any good scientist is), and yet he never issued any such statement. He never wrote a paper discussing the mistake. A term for the ether flow does not appear anywhere in any equation in any of his papers. In fact, open any physics text today and the 2nd postulate of SR still reads: "The speed of light in vacuum has the same constant value c in all inertial systems. " Why has this not been amended to read 'The speed of light in a vacuum is constant relative to the lumiferous ether'?

edit: RE: Lorentz ether theory: http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Relativity-for-beginners.html is a good discussion of how and more importantly, why Einstein came up with Relativity, including the flaws in the assumptions of Lorentz's theory. It so happens that Lorentz's math works out, but the method to get their is fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies.

 

[anti_crank]

In theory, I should get some comments in before the moderators lose their patience and lock this thread and its endless circularity. In practice, it turns out, I've gotten so much entertainment already from reading all this that any commentary would be fairly superfluous. Marlon calls this exhausting, but I call it a laugh fest; so much so that I'll be almost sorry to find this closed upon my return in 5 days.

 

[yogi]

Russ - If what you are saying is: some ethers have been eliminated - I would totally concur. And i would submit also that the idea of an ether as some sort of fluid medium was dealt a blow by Mmx.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Einstein's statements in the Leyden and other addresses that I have quoted are totally consistent. In other words, Einstein had an opportunity to put the lumiferous ether to bed - and take his stand against the ether as a requirement for the propagation of light - yet he doesn't do that - he says its necessary for the propagation of light.

To take all his statemente at face value, you wind up with a very peculiar animal (like your elephant). Now a distinction can be clearly drawn between Lorentz ether and other properties of space - I think Einstein, when referring to the "ether of Lorentz" is saying that motion with respect to space does not cause a physcial contraction of material things as per Lorentz and FitzGerald - i.e., there is nothing acting upon the electrons and atoms consequent to motion wrt space that brings about a physical shrinkage - So we can agree that Einstein has emphatically eliminated the "ether of Lorentz." I hope I have not given the impression that i am defending the ether of lorentz - because I am not.

But I do not find in his words a condemnation of a propagation medium.

Did Einstein change his mind? I don't think it was so much a change as shift. In his theory of GR he explained the G force as a static space conditioned by mass. Much of his later work was directed to finding a global connectedness. Einstein was convinced that particles do not act directly upon one another, but rather they affect space - and the second particle, being in the field of the first, feels the force of the first because of its affect upon the inbetween space. So while there is no specific retraction, there is this:

See next post

 

[yogi]

“There is no idea of which I would be sure that it would stand the
test of time, and I have doubts whether I am on the right way
In general ...feelings of dissatisfaction come from the inside.”

Quote from Einstein near the end of his life.

 

[Alkatran]

“There is no idea of which I would be sure that it would stand the
test of time, and I have doubts whether I am on the right way
In general ...feelings of dissatisfaction come from the inside.”

Quote from Einstein near the end of his life.

Why is all your evidence seem to be like this:
Einstein said it.
Therefore it is true.

And the other half is

Einstein said it.
Einstein then said it was wrong.
Therefore it is false.


Wait... i think.. I think I see a problem here... what.. is it... Oh I KNOW I;m looking RIGHT at it...

 

[russ_watters]

In theory, I should get some comments in before the moderators lose their patience and lock this thread and its endless circularity. In practice, it turns out, I've gotten so much entertainment already from reading all this that any commentary would be fairly superfluous. Marlon calls this exhausting, but I call it a laugh fest; so much so that I'll be almost sorry to find this closed upon my return in 5 days. [emphasis added]

Can you tell that's my new favorite word? It just rolls off the tongue. Say it with me: Superfluous, superfluous, Beetlegeuse - er, I mean superfluous!

 

[russ_watters]

This needs its own reply:

Russ - If what you are saying is: some ethers have been eliminated - I would totally concur. And i would submit also that the idea of an ether as some sort of fluid medium was dealt a blow by Mmx.

Fabulous. After 7 pages... Does this mean you're going to stop pretending its all the same thing?

 

[russ_watters]

Let me ask you this. Do you think Einstein's statements in the Leyden and other addresses that I have quoted are totally consistent. In other words, Einstein had an opportunity to put the lumiferous ether to bed...

Absolutely. The "lumiferous ether" is completely dead. SR took away its fundamental properties and Einstein confirmed/reiterated that in the Leyden address.

...and take his stand against the ether as a requirement for the propagation of light - yet he doesn't do that - he says its necessary for the propagation of light.

Dang, I thought you had it there for a sec. Just being required for the propagation of light isn't a property. That doesn't say anything about what those properties are that are required for the propagation of light. You're hung up on that tiny little piece of the quote and not looking at the whole picture. By removing the ability to apply motion to the medium, you are fundamentally changing what it is. Its not like we're going from air to water with the propagation of sound and just changing one property a little (bulk modulous) - removing the ability to apply motion makes Einstein's "new ether" fundamentally different from the classical/"lumiferous" ether.

To take all his statemente at face value, you wind up with a very peculiar animal (like your elephant). Now a distinction can be clearly drawn between Lorentz ether and other properties of space - I think Einstein, when referring to the "ether of Lorentz" is saying that motion with respect to space does not cause a physcial contraction of material things as per Lorentz and FitzGerald - i.e., there is nothing acting upon the electrons and atoms consequent to motion wrt space that brings about a physical shrinkage - So we can agree that Einstein has emphatically eliminated the "ether of Lorentz."

You're looking for loopholes in the speech now! Jeez, yogi, you're not taking what Einstein said at face value, you're looking for contradictions. They simply aren't there. Yes, Einstein's "new ether" is "a very peculiar animal". So what? Sorry, but sometimes scientists discover strange things.

But I do not find in his words a condemnation of a propagation medium.

Say it with me, yogi: superfluous, superfluous, su...

In science, there is no such thing as absolute proof and no such thing as proof of a negative. "Superfluous" is about the most damning thing you can say about a concept. It means 'utterly useless, unsupported, and irrelevant'. And that's what the last 100 years have been for ether theory: 100 years of useless irrelevancy. 100 years of speculating about the existence of an invisible purple elephant.

Einstein is quite clear in comparing the "new ether" to the classical one - he uses the example of waves on water and is quie explicit that "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time...," then goes on to explain what the new ether can look like. Essentially it sounds like a medium without the medium: no mass, no density, no pressure, scattering or absorbing of waves - none of the fundamental properties that make up the classical definition of an ether as a physical medium on which waves propagate.

I hope I have not given the impression that i am defending the ether of lorentz - because I am not.

No, you've just been lumping all references to the word into one undefined blob (in fact, you did state above that SR was compatible with Lorentz's ether - which is factually incorrect. The math may be the same, but the theories are not). What you appear to support isn't specifically Lorentz's ether, but it smells a lot like it.

Did Einstein change his mind? I don't think it was so much a change as shift.

Am I supposed to read that without laughing? Call it whatever you want - if there was a shift in his opinion/theory (especially one so fundamental), then he would have explicitly stated it and written a paper discussing it. He didn't.

In his theory of GR he explained the G force as a static space conditioned by mass. Much of his later work was directed to finding a global connectedness. Einstein was convinced that particles do not act directly upon one another, but rather they affect space - and the second particle, being in the field of the first, feels the force of the first because of its affect upon the inbetween space. So while there is no specific retraction, there is this:

See next post

None of that contradicts what Einstein said in 1905 or 1920 about SR, and a quote about his confidence in himself as a scientist is irrelevant to the conversation: saying he wasn't sure he was right is not the same as saying he was wrong.

Alkatran:

 

[yogi]

Russ - I am not pretending anything - There is much to be learned from studing the properties of the void.

I have several times acknowledged the properties of the medium are unrelated to Einstein's derivation of the transforms - that is not even an issue, and never was except as to those who kept (and continue) bringing it up because they have not read what I was saying. And I have clarified that Einstein rejected the notion of a Lorentz ether, and also that I never endorsed such an ether (one that brings about contractions when physical objects are moved relative thereto). Einstein drew a fine line between what the ether was, and what it was not, and that is what I attempted to do, obviously with our success.

So for all those who think they know it all - here is a Fourth call for an answer to what Einstein meant by: "...without an ether there can be no propagation of light" If you don't have an answer - fine - just say so or say nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

I have several times acknowledged the properties of the medium are unrelated to Einstein's derivation of the transforms - that is not even an issue, and never was except as to those who kept (and continue) bringing it up because they have not read what I was saying.

We keep bringing it up because what you are saying is wrong. Einstein's derivation is based on the universal principle of relativity, and that's a fundamental shift away from the classical ether. The fact that Einstein does not assume the existence of a particulate medium is not superfluous ( ) - its the entire issue we're discussing.

And I have clarified that Einstein rejected the notion of a Lorentz ether, and also that I never endorsed such an ether (one that brings about contractions when physical objects are moved relative thereto). Einstein drew a fine line between what the ether was, and what it was not, and that is what I attempted to do, obviously with our success.

The reason you haven't succeeded in drawing that line is because you don't have a theory to discuss and thus you have been (apparently) lumping every mention of the word "ether" into a nebulous blob. If you stopped doing that, I wouldn't have to keep reminding you that the various ethers aren't the same (though you are being a little more open in admitting that now than you used to be).

edit: in any case, post 10 (I started at the beginning and that's the first I found) looks to me like an endorsement of Lorentz ether theory. You claim (incorrectly) that the properties of the Lorentz ether don't factor into SR. They do: the assumption is simply that the Lorentz ether doesn't exist. If those properties had been found to be real, that would absolutely have an effect on SR.

So for all those who think they know it all

Get off your high horse: the only one here who is making a claim with no evidence to back it up is you. You've admitted that. Heck, for whatever reason, you haven't even been specific about what your claim is - just what little bits of it are.

...here is a Fourth call for an answer to what Einstein meant by: "...without an ether there can be no propagation of light" If you don't have an answer - fine - just say so or say nothing.

That's been asked and answerd in virtually every post in this thread, you're just refusing to accept the answer. Heck, I answered it in the first 3 sentences of this post! The simple answer is that "empty space" has properties and those properties are required for the propagation of light. But here's a shift: why don't you tell us precisely what this "ether" he is talking about is (or, better yet, forget Einstein: tell us what you think that ether looks like). You're the one claiming that every mainstream physicist who has lived in the past 100 years is wrong. Tell us why.