It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two Errors In Relativity

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Give both definitions please so we can see the difference.




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BakedCrusader


When it comes to matter and energy as we comprehend it, it seems to be, when it comes to quantum states and "relatable" it is not. The problem is developing a Unified Felid Theory that compensates for the difference which no one has yet.

If your suggesting (for the sake of debate) that the "quantum foam" can be described as Luminiferous Aether??????????



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

What is the difference?

Quantum foam are your words. I mean whatever it is that fills empty space.
edit on 5-4-2017 by BakedCrusader because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BakedCrusader


The same reason why there is today no Unified Field Theory.


Einstein's Aether is like considering a human body made entirely of Quarks and Leptons (old school). Hypothetically if a human could perceive reality that way. They could relate of reality in a way that is generally considered as impossible today.

Space-time as a physical object it potentially observable upon scales we do not have a number for yet.



Computers have been on the hunt ever since, and currently the 47th Mersenne prime is the largest known to humanity. Discovered in 2008, it is 2^43,112,609 - 1, which is a number with nearly 13 million digits.



io9.gizmodo.com...

That number in relation to the size of space-time could conservatively be equivalent to the size of a quark in relation to how vast space-time is.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

You didn't answer the question.

What is the difference between aether, Dark Energy/Matter, and quantum foam?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BakedCrusader


Actually I did.


Einstein's Aether could be finite upon scales we do not comprehend and as far as the rest we are starting to relate.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

You explained the difference by saying that you know nothing?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Give both definitions please so we can see the difference.

luminiferous ether

a theoretical universal substance believed during the 19th century to act as the medium for transmission of electromagnetic waves (e.g., light and X-rays), much as sound waves are transmitted by elastic media such as air. The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space. The theory met with increasing difficulties as the nature of light and the structure of matter became better understood. It was seriously weakened (1887) by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was designed specifically to detect the motion of Earth through the ether and which showed that there was no such effect.


Space-time

single concept that recognizes the union of space and time, posited by Albert Einstein in the theories of relativity (1905, 1916).


What we now call "space-time" in the above link, Einstein referred to as "ether of the general theory of relativity" in this 1920 speech and he explains the difference between it and the luminiferous aether:
Einstein: Ether and Relativity

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BakedCrusader

Yes and that amounts to the first conclusions of wisdom.

Humans are not "all knowing".

There Is an inherent between subjective and deductive reasoning. In the case of a the latter on knows everything about an environment.

Do you have deductive evidence as to the compete structure of reality?





Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[1] It differs from inductive reasoning and adductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty. However, the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.


Basically as soon as you can understand reality as a whole physically you could perhaps form a deductive conclusion.

Otherwise you are talking about a belief.
edit on 5-4-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sure, bla bla, off course there are not going to come out and say that the aether they got rid of is not the exact same concept as the "new ether". It's a totally different thing but let's call it ether too!



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BakedCrusader


Light does not require a medium in the sense your describing.

Just like the earth is not flat.

Same difference.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sure, bla bla, off course there are not going to come out and say that the aether they got rid of is not the exact same concept as the "new ether". It's a totally different thing but let's call it ether too!
He explained the rather dramatic difference. If you don't understand what he said then your reading comprehension is lacking, but I think part of the reason we now refer to "space-time" instead of "ether" is so we don't confuse two totally different types of aether with totally different properties by using names that are too similar.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You mentioned space time, I was talking about Dark Energy/Matter.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Its like expecting one of my dogs to fix me dinner.

Its not going to happen.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




Light does not require a medium in the sense your describing.


And this is based on the flawed conclusion of the MM experiment? So again, space is empty according to you?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BakedCrusader


Space is not empty just not in a way that you are assuming.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You mentioned space time, I was talking about Dark Energy/Matter.
If you're telling me this is referring to dark energy/matter then you need to improve your communication skills because I see no hint of dark matter or dark energy referenced in this comment:


originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Sure, bla bla, off course there are not going to come out and say that the aether they got rid of is not the exact same concept as the "new ether". It's a totally different thing but let's call it ether too!



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I asked you for the difference between aether and Dark Energy/Matter.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

What way is that? What is the difference between aether and DarkEnergy/Matter?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Einstein came up with the idea of a scalar field that existed everywhere. He did this to explain spooky action at a distance. Hr thought there must be a universal time at each location and these time coordinates could be very different from each other. Later he realizes this doesnt follow observation. For example you could literally leave one area and end up in another with a different value in time going forward or backwards. this is what makes him reject this idea calling it a mistake.


I know you will like this but heres einstein explaining his paper. Now we suspect he may have been right sort of when we look at fields and realize they are everywhere..

www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk...
edit on 4/5/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join