Re: The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

Liste des GroupesRevenir Γ  physics 
Sujet : Re: The most ridiculous science mistake in history.
De : AetherRegaind (at) *nospam* invalid.com (Aether Regained)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 25. Mar 2024, 17:28:00
Autres entΓͺtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <uts53j$15lls$1@tor.dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>
It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>
Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>
Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.
>
The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>
Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>
Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
saw that the aether has no observable properties.
Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
and after Einstein 1905 he saw
that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.
>

There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
an aether?

Maxwell:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism/Part_IV/Chapter_XXIII

"A MEDIUM NECESSARY.

866.] We have seen that the mathematical expressions for electrodynamic
action led, in the mind of Gauss, to the conviction that a theory of the
propagation of electric action in time would be found to be the very
KEYSTONE of electrodynamics. Now we are unable to conceive of
propagation in time, except either as the flight of a material substance
through space, or as the propagation of a condition of motion or stress
in a medium already existing in space."

π‘¬π’Šπ’π’”π’•π’†π’Šπ’ 1920: ᴁ𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 π‘»π’‰π’†π’π’“π’š 𝒐𝒇
π‘Ήπ’†π’π’‚π’•π’Šπ’—π’Šπ’•π’š

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity

π‘Ήπ’†π’„π’‚π’‘π’Šπ’•π’–π’π’‚π’•π’Šπ’π’ˆ, π’˜π’† π’Žπ’‚π’š π’”π’‚π’š 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕
π’‚π’„π’„π’π’“π’…π’Šπ’π’ˆ 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 π’ˆπ’†π’π’†π’“π’‚π’ π’•π’‰π’†π’π’“π’š 𝒐𝒇
π’“π’†π’π’‚π’•π’Šπ’—π’Šπ’•π’š 𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒆 π’Šπ’” π’†π’π’…π’π’˜π’†π’… π’˜π’Šπ’•π’‰
π’‘π’‰π’šπ’”π’Šπ’„π’‚π’ π’’π’–π’‚π’π’Šπ’•π’Šπ’†π’”; π’Šπ’ π’•π’‰π’Šπ’” 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆,
𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 π’†π’™π’Šπ’”π’•π’” 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓.
π‘¨π’„π’„π’π’“π’…π’Šπ’π’ˆ 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 π’ˆπ’†π’π’†π’“π’‚π’ π’•π’‰π’†π’π’“π’š 𝒐𝒇
π’“π’†π’π’‚π’•π’Šπ’—π’Šπ’•π’š 𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒆 π’˜π’Šπ’•π’‰π’π’–π’• 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 π’Šπ’”
π’–π’π’•π’‰π’Šπ’π’Œπ’‚π’ƒπ’π’†; 𝒇𝒐𝒓 π’Šπ’ 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆
𝒏𝒐𝒕 π’π’π’π’š π’˜π’π’–π’π’… 𝒃𝒆 𝒏𝒐 π’‘π’“π’π’‘π’‚π’ˆπ’‚π’•π’Šπ’π’ 𝒐𝒇
π’π’Šπ’ˆπ’‰π’•, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒏𝒐 π’‘π’π’”π’”π’Šπ’ƒπ’Šπ’π’Šπ’•π’š 𝒐𝒇
π’†π’™π’Šπ’”π’•π’†π’π’„π’† 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅
π’•π’Šπ’Žπ’† (π’Žπ’†π’‚π’”π’–π’“π’Šπ’π’ˆ-𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 π’„π’π’π’„π’Œπ’”), 𝒏𝒐𝒓
𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 π’‚π’π’š 𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒆-π’•π’Šπ’Žπ’† π’Šπ’π’•π’†π’“π’—π’‚π’π’” π’Šπ’
𝒕𝒉𝒆 π’‘π’‰π’šπ’”π’Šπ’„π’‚π’ 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆. 𝑩𝒖𝒕 π’•π’‰π’Šπ’” 𝒂𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 π’Žπ’‚π’š
𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒆 π’•π’‰π’π’–π’ˆπ’‰π’• 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒔 π’†π’π’…π’π’˜π’†π’… π’˜π’Šπ’•π’‰ 𝒕𝒉𝒆
π’’π’–π’‚π’π’Šπ’•π’š π’„π’‰π’‚π’“π’‚π’„π’•π’†π’“π’Šπ’”π’•π’Šπ’„ 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆
π’Žπ’†π’…π’Šπ’‚, 𝒂𝒔 π’„π’π’π’”π’Šπ’”π’•π’Šπ’π’ˆ 𝒐𝒇 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔 π’˜π’‰π’Šπ’„π’‰ π’Žπ’‚π’š
𝒃𝒆 π’•π’“π’‚π’„π’Œπ’†π’… π’•π’‰π’“π’π’–π’ˆπ’‰ π’•π’Šπ’Žπ’†. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 π’Šπ’…π’†π’‚ 𝒐𝒇
π’Žπ’π’•π’Šπ’π’ π’Žπ’‚π’š 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒆 π’‚π’‘π’‘π’π’Šπ’†π’… 𝒕𝒐 π’Šπ’•.

π‘«π’Šπ’“π’‚π’„ 1951: 𝑰𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏 Æ𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓?

https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

"Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz senseβ€”all
directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
According to the aether hypothesis, at each point in the region there
must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical
variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
distributed over various possible values according to a probability law
obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity. "


This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
science.
>
Science is above all an economic representation of the world.
(by Ockham, Mach, and afaik all other philosophers of science)
It doesn't carry unnecessary unobservables along.
The problem is your's.
>
There is no point in (for example) having Newton's laws
for the motions of planets, AND to have angels to push them along
in such a way that they move precisely in accordance with Newton's laws.
>

Without an aether, the state of physics is little different than "angels
pulling/pushing around objects in accordance with the force laws".

Maxwell again:

"In fact, whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in
time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists
after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, ... Hence all
these theories [indirectly] lead to the conception of a medium in which
the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as an
hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our
investigations, and that we ought to endeavour to construct a mental
representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my
constant aim in this treatise. "

Some conservative theologians tried that trick,
but for some strange reason it didn't catch on,
>
Jan
>

Date Sujet#  Auteur
6 Oct 24 o  …

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal