Ether Drag Hypothesis Explained - 65 Characters

[yogi]

On the contrary - I am claiming Einstein is correct - at least as to those aspects of what he considered to be an ether, and as to those aspects which he considered erroneous.

Why would you expect me to have a model of an ether - Einstein didn't have a model - he defined it as best he could in terms of properties such as inertia, gravity, and fields etc. Maybe Ed Witten will find a model of the ether that incorporates all of its known characterics - but it has never been my intention to imply that I have anything to add to what is already known - ... new theories belong in a different section of the forums - the only reason prompting me to comment by entering posts on the subject is because those who are not familiar with the history of the subject tend make overly broad and erroneous claims that SR disproved the existence of an ether - superfluous means in excess of what is sufficient - an ether is superfluous to SR. Enough said on that subject

SR is such a sensitive subject on these boards that any attempt to be precise about what was and was not implied by Einstein immediately generates a wave of derogatory feedback.

Thank you for your answer: "empty space has properties and those properties are required for the propagation of light." I couldn't agree more, nor could I have said it better.

 

[Reshma]

Gosh, I never thought my thread would go this far!

 

[ZapperZ]

SR is such a sensitive subject on these boards that any attempt to be precise about what was and was not implied by Einstein immediately generates a wave of derogatory feedback.

And deservedly so when one tries to misinterpret and twist things into unrecognized form. Let's not forget that you tried to slip false ideas by us by implying the de Broglie's matter wave never ever appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

What you seem to miss is the fact that there ARE challenges to SR all the time! Just because you are ignorant of it, doesn't mean it doesn't occur. [Obviously you only preach about such principles with respect to the ether, but you don't practice it]. Various incarnations of String and quantum gravity predicts violation of the lorentz transformation. Such challenges NEVER "generate a wave of deragatory feedback". Why? These things are done based on the PHYSICS, not based on quotations from "idols". There is a distinct difference between what YOU do, and what legitimate studies in physics do. Please try not to confuse those two.

Thank you for your answer: "empty space has properties and those properties are required for the propagation of light." I couldn't agree more, nor could I have said it better.

Except you gave it the WRONG name. Virtual photon fields as described in QFT/QED look NOTHING like the "ether". Show this to the 19th century physicists and they would NOT recognize this as being their ether!

If this quantum field is what you've been pushing all along, and what you think Einstein meant (he didn't get to see QFT/QED in its full bloom), then it is IRRESPONSIBLE of you to call this field "ether" because you are changing the name that has been given to such a field. However, if this is really what you meant, but yet you haven't a clue what QFT/QED really is, then aren't you really pushing something out of ignorance?

Somehow, either way, it looks BAD!

Zz.

 

[Chronos]

Yogi, imagine Einstein having the unpleasant task of defending his theory while showing sensitivity and respect for his peers. It was necessary to lay to rest the venerable, but mistaken notions of the past. It was not necessary to callously dump the corpse into the nearest river. Einstein instead chose to reach out to his peers and mourn the loss of that part of their belief system. The Leiden speech was a funeral - putting to rest the past but honoring its role in creating the future.

 

[russ_watters]

On the contrary - I am claiming Einstein is correct - at least as to those aspects of what he considered to be an ether, and as to those aspects which he considered erroneous.

You cannot say that after saying Einstein's position "shift"ed, after claiming/implying contradictions and inconsistencies, and after advocating some aspects of various classical ether theories. You're being inconsistent (again).

Why would you expect me to have a model of an ether - Einstein didn't have a model - he defined it as best he could in terms of properties such as inertia, gravity, and fields etc.

That was Einstein's model. And we still use it! What I would expect from you, at the very least, is to be specific about the aspects of different models that you favor. You've implied quite a bit about your preference for a classical lumiferous ether, but you haven't been specfic about it. About the only thing you've made clear is how badly you misunderstand Einstein's position on the ether.

...the only reason prompting me to comment by entering posts on the subject is because those who are not familiar with the history of the subject tend make overly broad and erroneous claims that SR disproved the existence of an ether - superfluous means in excess of what is sufficient - an ether is superfluous to SR.

And your misunderstandings/mischaracterizations continue...

SR is such a sensitive subject on these boards that any attempt to be precise about what was and was not implied by Einstein immediately generates a wave of derogatory feedback.

Quite the contrary: precision is exactly what we are looking for. You have consistently resisted clarity and precision by lumping together various "ether" citings into one nebulous blob (see your erroneous characterization above: why, again, did you not specify that there is more than one "ether"?).

Thank you for your answer: "empty space has properties and those properties are required for the propagation of light." I couldn't agree more, nor could I have said it better.

...but you do still misunderstand what it means.

 

[yogi]

Russ -Only several posts previously you admitted to never having read the entire Leyden (Leiden) address - yet you continue to pontificate on the ether. Of course, that is your privilege.

As for me, however, I again repeat - i don't have a model and I don't think anyone else (including Einstein) has (had) either - at least none that is able to explain inertia, expansion, impedance etc. Einstein frequently reflected upon various aspects of space, both in his Leyden address and in many of his other works later in life - he pointed out why Mach's principle was unsatisfactory, why Lorentz either was unsatisfactory, why space was real according to Newton, etc - but that is not a model as you have asserted, it is a philosophy, a dialog of inquiry - as chronos said - he is reaching out to his peers. I doubt whether its possible to practice the same sort of dialectic on these boards..

Reshma - it shouldn't have gone this far - time to quit is long overdue. Perhaps somewhere in these posts you will find an answer to your question. Good Luck.