A new physics forum: Hidden Variables

ahh--no, again, read the actual chapter from the actual book.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, sorry, I accidentally omitted the word. The full paragraph reads thus:

"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 would 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."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, it can't be thought of as, "consisting of parts which may be tracked through time", like being the medium from which light waves? Then maybe we should start calling it something else, Mr. Einstein. How about we just call it spacetime instead, so we can cut out all of the confusion? Wouldn't that be a lot better than calling an aspect of a theory the same thing that the theory completely contradicts and disproves?

This is a prime example of why you shouldn't try to teach yourself things on the internet. BTW: Hidden Variables wouldn't send me a confirmation email. Who do I call for tech support?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems like you have been registered. So everything looks fine. Why you have not get a confirmation email I don't know, it looks like this feature is on. But there was an attack of spam registrations, which I had to stop, and this may have caused some problem.

The Einstein quote "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." I like, because it is a place where one can show Einstein was wrong. It may be thought, using my ether interpretation, by using harmonic coordinates (which are allowed in GR) and defining density by \(\rho=g^{00}\sqrt{-g}\) and velocity by \(v^i = g^{0i}/g^{00}\). A minor disagreement only, "may not be thought" is simply too strong.

 

To a certain extent that could be correct.
But havn't you yourself learnt from the Internet?
And in most cases, scientific papers from reputable publishers, and Professionals from Universities and other learning institutions are quite accurate.
And of course is it not presumptuous of you, or anyone for that matter, to pretend that he or she is able to fabricate theories and models him or herself, without the necessary basic learning and skills?
And of course many people come to science forums such as this, not so much to learn, but because they have a bee in their bonnet about some aspect of current cosmology or other aspect of science, which in near all cases, is simply because they do not understand the basics of that which they have a bee in their bonnet about.
We have plenty of them here, and most would not get a look in on other science forums, and some have in fact been banned from other forums for preaching their nonsensical alternatives without a skerrick of real evidence to support their concepts.

 

Ether is a form of hidden plasma ; it exists ; but very hard to detect.

 

Not really, unless you are inferring spacetime.

 

So your saying that space-time has ether included?

 

No, I'm saying that some have put spacetime down as the ether itself.

 

Einstein's quote was probably about the luminiferous aether. The action at a distance by direct contact particulate aether.

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-modern-day-space-time-fabric-the-same-as-luminiferous-aether

The ether was believed to be a type of invisible fluid perhaps, or some kind of medium in which light could propagate through. The crucial thing about the ether was that it provided some kind of "objective" reference frame, while relativity maintains that there is absolutelyno objective reference frame. "Space" wasn't really thought of a concept by itself during the time in which the ether was being considered. You can think of the ether as water in a glass, where the glass is actually space. We just couldn't conceive of anything like a glass until, of course, we did (and thus came the foundations of relativity).

Spacetime can curve and curl, and although we don't really know why, what we do know is that this isn't like objects curving (or curling). Think back to the glass. It can be square or circular at the bottom, or even mostly spherical with a flattened place (so that it functions like an actual glass). You're thinking about the glass because it can come in any shape and size, but the fact that it can be a different shape still doesn't mean that it is anything like the liquid that is contained in it. Just because the water can curve at the edges or slosh around and exist in different shapes doesn't mean that it's just like the glass, which can also exist in different forms. Also note that just because the ether "curves" (whatever that means), it doesn't really affect the motion of anything inside it, unless it created vortices or instabilities like in a normal fluid. But again, totally different things.

Dark energy is a whole different thing entirely. Well, maybe. We really don't know enough about dark energy to say. But no, we are not coming up with new names for old things. Relativity really does have some far-reaching foundational arguments that hold up a theory which is much more successful in edge cases while still maintaining consistency with the old theory. That is the hallmark of a successful theory.

 

Space can not curve nor curl ; it is the matter that does so.

 

Unscientific crap........
Spacetime as shown by GP-B and many other experiments, warp, twist, curve and wave in the presence of mass.

 

Investigation the presence of mass ; and not only in the presence of mass but energy.

Hence why I have suggested and argued that lensing; is NOT because of gravity but because of ; in the case of the Sun ; the Sun's atmosphere; not gravity.

 

Of course...that's why E=Mc2

You can make all the suggestions you like river: Firstly you are not qualified, secondly this has all been done before and you have been informed how and why they are able to discertain the difference.
As usual, like with those not interested in the scientific answer, you have ignore those links.
Gravitational lensing is a totally confirmed and many times evidenced phenomenon.

 

Gravitational lensing ? Is confirmed ; I see ; so questioning this ; perspective ; out out of the picture then ?

 

Just as confirmed as the Lense Thirring effect, gravitational waves and BH's.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.08215

http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01203

http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03062

 

So pad these sites give unquestionable evidence ; for gravity as the basis for this lensing?

 

Just as confirmed as the Lense Thirring effect, gravitational waves and BH's.


Of course it would be silly of me to ask if you read the links.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I did ; none talked a out the Sun's atmosphere.