Is There a Place in the Universe That is Truly at Rest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Omni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ether
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of a "rest" point in the universe and whether such a location exists. Participants argue that there is no absolute reference frame or single point of origin for the Big Bang, as it occurred everywhere simultaneously. The cosmic background radiation (CBR) is mentioned as a potential isotropic reference, but it does not provide a definitive answer to the question of rest. The conversation also touches on the implications of relativity and the nature of space, emphasizing that all positions and velocities are relative to other objects in the universe. Ultimately, the consensus is that defining a truly "at rest" point is not feasible within our current understanding of cosmology.
  • #31
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Do you have any references that point out the difference?
Google yields quite a bit: http://www.mu6.com/einstein.html
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4934

The second link provides a full text of a lecture by Einstien. Excerpts:
The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter.

Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.

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 wonld 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.
Its also been discussed here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
All the emboldened points out to is that it isn't "pieces" but you said it wasn't the "classical", that is what I was looking for, the difference between that, 'classical' and the other, 'non-classical'..

Not explained there...right?
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
All the emboldened points out to is that it isn't "pieces" but you said it wasn't the "classical", that is what I was looking for, the difference between that, 'classical' and the other, 'non-classical'..

Not explained there...right?
As I understand it, its the "pieces" that make it classical.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by russ_watters
As I understand it, its the "pieces" that make it classical.
Hummm OK I'd thought that that part hadn't been decided as there hadn't been evidence to support it, either way, but I had thought it was "The Metric" AKA the Ether AKA Spacetime as the Properties of any of those terminological inferences hasn't been entirely supportable, to/so far...hence the present search...

BTW by "The Metric" I mean all of 'Spacetime' (ether/word) as one thing...hence speed c with the associative need of establishing it as everywhere, by measure...means outside of Solar influence(s)...

PPSS Tanks Russ!
 
  • #35
If there was an ether it would absorb certain light frequencies, it is therefore possible to test if there is an ether or not with a wide spectrum frequencie generator.
 
  • #36
Sariaht said:
If there was an ether it would absorb certain light frequencies, it is therefore possible to test if there is an ether or not with a wide spectrum frequencie generator.

Excuse me? The role of an ether was to embody radiation, to be the carrier of frequency theough its waves. How could it be an absorber too?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
6K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
945