What is the Aether?

[Laurent]

The aether is simply the space between two points.

In other words, it is nothing. Have a nice day and thank you for
saying nothing in less than 5 pages.

Right, the aether is not matter, so could say it is no thing.

David Bohm called
it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates
us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of
Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they
explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the
aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does
it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day
he died.
---
Whether you can call it God or not would depend on what you think God
is. To me God was a thing incapable of thinking or feeling until
matter and brains came into existence. Besides that, many, like
Buddhists for example, call it Consciousness, others call it Mind, but
they are all referring to same THING I am talking about, a universal
being. The aether, like God, is omnipresent, eternal, with no
beginning and no end. The aether is the seat of the field, and without
fields there would be no universe, right? Therefore, it is the source
of everything there is.
David Chalmers likes to ask - what is that which is? - he calls this
"the hard problem", and the answer is, the aether is that which is.
Why? Because it is immutable, it is now what it always was, and there
is nothing in this universe that you can say that about, simply
because matter is in constant change, what was five seconds ago, is
not anymore.
--
Laurent

[Laurent]

The aether is simply the space between two points.

In other words, it is nothing. Have a nice day and thank you for
saying nothing in less than 5 pages.

Right, the aether is not matter, so, as you say, it is no thing.

--
Laurent

David Bohm called
it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates
us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of
Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they
explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the
aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does
it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day
he died.
---
Whether you can call it God or not would depend on what you think God
is. To me God was a thing incapable of thinking or feeling until
matter and brains came into existence. Besides that, many, like
Buddhists for example, call it Consciousness, others call it Mind, but
they are all referring to same THING I am talking about, a universal
being. The aether, like God, is omnipresent, eternal, with no
beginning and no end. The aether is the seat of the field, and without
fields there would be no universe, right? Therefore, it is the source
of everything there is.
David Chalmers likes to ask - what is that which is? - he calls this
"the hard problem", and the answer is, the aether is that which is.
Why? Because it is immutable, it is now what it always was, and there
is nothing in this universe that you can say that about, simply
because matter is in constant change, what was five seconds ago, is
not anymore.
--
Laurent

[Laurent]

The aether is simply the space between two points.

In other words, it is nothing. Have a nice day and thank you for
saying nothing in less than 5 pages.

David Bohm called
it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates
us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of
Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they
explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the
aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does
it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day
he died.
---
Whether you can call it God or not would depend on what you think God
is. To me God was a thing incapable of thinking or feeling until
matter and brains came into existence. Besides that, many, like
Buddhists for example, call it Consciousness, others call it Mind, but
they are all referring to same THING I am talking about, a universal
being. The aether, like God, is omnipresent, eternal, with no
beginning and no end. The aether is the seat of the field, and without
fields there would be no universe, right? Therefore, it is the source
of everything there is.
David Chalmers likes to ask - what is that which is? - he calls this
"the hard problem", and the answer is, the aether is that which is.
Why? Because it is immutable, it is now what it always was, and there
is nothing in this universe that you can say that about, simply
because matter is in constant change, what was five seconds ago, is
not anymore.
--
Laurent

Right, since it is not matter, it is no thing.

[Spirit of Truth]

Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine?

Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past
and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which
IS false.

Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary, I'm
sure.
Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in which
those
postulates appear?

Read Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene...a Best Seller. Einstein
refers in his 1905 ? lecture to lack of simultaneiety...just doesn't expose
it's real consequence.

What Relativitists ignore is that 'lack of simultaneity' is not real

Ahhhh... Yet another fruitcake whose definition of ``real'' is
``that which contradicts real experiments.''

Lack of simultaneiety has never been experimentally proven. It IS
false.

so the Lorentz math is not the correct math to use for the
M & M experiment neither for the aether theory nor SR.

Get another hobby. Apparently, geometry and trigonometry are over
your head.

No, you really should look at how an event could possibly happen
in one frame at a different time from another frame (not including
time for c to bring information nor doppler effect).



from: Spirit Of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

[Spirit of Truth]

Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine?

Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past
and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which
IS false.

Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary, I'm
sure.
Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in which
those
postulates appear?

Read 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' by Brian Greene...a Best Seller.
Einstein refers in his 1905 ? lecture to lack of simultaneiety...just
doesn't expose it's real consequence.

What Relativitists ignore is that 'lack of simultaneity' is not real

Ahhhh... Yet another fruitcake whose definition of ``real'' is
``that which contradicts real experiments.''

??? You are surely not saying that what is actual in the Universe
does not take precedence over the math one choses to use
even when that math is inappropriately used?
Lack of simultaneiety has never been experimentally proven.
It IS false.

so the Lorentz math is not the correct math to use for the
M & M experiment neither for the aether theory nor SR.

Get another hobby. Apparently, geometry and trigonometry are over
your head.

No, you really should look at how an event could possibly happen
in one frame at a different time from another frame (not including
time for c to bring information nor doppler effect).



from: Spirit Of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

[Laurent]

Bilge, of course the aether is nothing, it is not material.

[Spirit of Truth]

Post by Spirit of Truth

Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine?

Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past
and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which
IS false.

Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary, I'm
sure.
Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in which
those
postulates appear?

Read 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' by Brian Greene...a Best Seller.
Einstein refers in his 1905 ? lecture to lack of simultaneiety...just
doesn't expose it's real consequence.

You mean like the experimental data which support it?

You obviously HAVEN'T read it.

Post by Spirit of Truth

What Relativitists ignore is that 'lack of simultaneity' is not real

Ahhhh... Yet another fruitcake whose definition of ``real'' is
``that which contradicts real experiments.''

??? You are surely not saying that what is actual in the Universe
does not take precedence over the math one choses to use
even when that math is inappropriately used?

Which part of why you are a fruitcake did you not understand?

The part where you pretend to be unintelligent.

Post by Spirit of Truth
Lack of simultaneiety has never been experimentally proven.

The many epr experiments.

List even one experiment proving lack of simultaneity, Bilge.

Post by Spirit of Truth
It IS false.

Which only proves my point regarding your definition of real being that
which contradicts real experiments

Do you even know what "simultaneity" means?

Post by Spirit of Truth

so the Lorentz math is not the correct math to use for the
M & M experiment neither for the aether theory nor SR.

Get another hobby. Apparently, geometry and trigonometry are over
your head.

No, you really should look at how an event could possibly happen
in one frame at a different time from another frame (not including
time for c to bring information nor doppler effect).

It's very simple for anyone who can understand basic geometry and
trigonometry if the person isn't too stupid to realize that the universe
might not fit his/her preconceptions.

Again, the NOW event is physical and all observers perceive the same
NOW event. Inappropriate math is simply that.

from: Spirit Of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

[Spirit of Truth]

Post by Spirit of Truth

Post by Spirit of Truth

Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine?

Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent
past
and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which
IS false.

Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary,
I'm
sure.
Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in
which
those
postulates appear?

Read 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' by Brian Greene...a Best Seller.
Einstein refers in his 1905 ? lecture to lack of simultaneiety...just
doesn't expose it's real consequence.

You mean like the experimental data which support it?

You obviously HAVEN'T read it.

I read scientific journals for scientific information.
[...]

Post by Spirit of Truth

The many epr experiments.

List even one experiment proving lack of simultaneity, Bilge.

``Quantum Correlations with Spacelike Separated Beam Splitters in
Experimental Test of Multisimultaneity''
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120404 (2002)

Common, Bilge, show some inkling that you know what we are talking about
here.

In other words, you didn't bother to read the article, but you think
I might be worried about your opinion of me and forget you are a dumbfuck.
That's okay, since I never expected you to read it and you met my
expectation. I thought it was a tossup as to whether you would confirm
that with a reply.
Seriously, out of all of the possibly interesting things to do in the
world,
you couldn't find one that you had any talent for? I guess not.

Look, here is another example showing how lack of simultaneity is
nonsense.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001008/00/Conclusions_About_Simultaneity_of_Two_Events.pdf

Gee, do you really think an appeal to philosophy is more credible as a
description of reality than a real experiment performed with real
intruments?
I'm sure you do.

I guess Einstein and you don't see eye to eye, Bilge. Never-mind, I guess
he never knew you thought he was an idiot.

Spirit of Truth
.