# WOW - Ether at Last

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Aug 16, 2003.

1. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
Yes. Very very useful concoctions indeed.

3. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Yes

James R.,

ANS: Oh but I did and as I recall you (and others) kept harping about geometries. I was already aware about the different geometrical views. However unfortunately as usual these responses simply ignore my statement and do not respond to the question at hand.

They only preach the status quo relavistic arguement and it nor your statement acknowledge nor explain how if the disk dimension changes, and so does the ruler, by the same magnitude, therefore no change in measurement can occur, hence no change in calculated Pi occurs.

Take this example a disk at rest (not rotating) has a diameter of 1,000,000,000 inches times pi equals a circumferance of 3,141,592,654 inches. (261,799,400 feet).

Now we rotate the disk such that the edge has a velocity of 0.9c.

Relavistic contraction by SR says that the circumference is 43.5889894% of its original length or the circumference is now 1,369,388,000 inches (114,115,700 feet) around according to a bystander not on the rotating disk.

However the bystander also sees your ruler moving at 0.9c and as only 5.2300678732 inches long compared to its 12 inch rest length.

114,115,700 feet/(5.2300678732 inches/12 inches) = 3.141592654 or the ratio of the radius to the circumference has not changed. It still equals the standard at rest Pi, not some other value of some other geometry. No measurement has changed. No calculation of ratio has changed.

You can do as Ryan claimed. That is also change the radius by GR. It doesn't alter the result either because the ruler also changes by the exact same amount by GR.

The arguement of going to a different geometry is without any basis. Standard geometry still works fine.

I am once again going to show you the differances in this MSB's responses to that of others. The following is the conclusions of a string on (3) Clocks, which received negative comments here but once discussed without the personal attacks and concentrating on the issues came to a better resolution.

A simular problem exists in the responses here to the Changing Pi question. I will make you a "Priori Prediction". I can take this Pi question to this other board and get a favorable response and without all this baseless slander.

*********************** Extract ********************

Hmmm... yes it does boil down to semantics, as always, but this time the semantics do correspond to something definite. I think I get what you are saying DanK,

I agree with you. While it is reality for the one doing the observing, it is not reality for the observed, and the observing done by the former does not change the state of the latter. However, if one were to go right up to the other and stare them in the face, even interact with them, the measurements wouldn't change, and it is a reality in this sense. I guess one could say that the way space time is formed brings a sort of shade down between observers that causes both to witness time dilation and length contraction (and impacts interaction). This isn't literal, of course, but a good anaology. The symmetry is the Lorentz symmetry and of couse we all now understand its effects on measurements. Case closed?

**********************

My response: Case Closed.

I'm here for several reasons James. Learning was part of it but what I found is you can only learn if you accept curt answers by those that think they have all the correct answers and you accept their presentation. They ignore (or ridicule) anything and anybody that disagrees. I am still hopeful that I can crack this barrier here. If not so be it but it is still worth a try because so many are being exposed to misleading representations here.

Take a quick look at your MSB James. Why do you suppose that the readership of these strings are currently (and historically) 3-4 times that of the other strings.?

Maybe they like all the mud slinging but then maybe they are finding refreshing new views to ponder.

Thanks.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Last edited: Aug 21, 2003

5. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
MacM:

You're missing the point. In the rotating disc situation, the rulers on the circumference and on the radius certainly change lengths, but <b>by different amounts</b>. Therefore, if you measure the circumference with the rulers on the circumference and you measure the radius with rulers on the radius, you will find that the circumference does not equal 2 pi times the radius.

It is not correct to say that pi changes in this situation, because pi is a number defined to be 3.141592653589792846... It is, however, true to say that the ratio of the measured circumference to the measured diameter of the disc is not equal to pi when the disc is rotating.

On another point, you wonder why your threads receive so much attention. The answer is that you refuse to admit when you are wrong, and it tends to take a long time to explain things to you over and over again in the hope that you will eventually understand. Prosoothus's threads are long for the same reason.

People who are willing to accept science without prejudice mostly have their queries dealt with very quickly here. People who fight real science every step of the way generally find that science is a solid edifice which stands up very well to the attacks of the ignorant.

7. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Yes/No

James R.,

ANS: Yes this is a true statement but is totally misleading. The circumference may shrink to 1/3 its original amount, while the radius shrinks to 1/2 its original amounts, so the ratio of change is not the same and that does infer an alternate geometry.

BUT you continue to miss the point. The ruler on the circumference also shrinks to 1/3 (4 inches) and the ruler on the radius shrinks to 1/2 (6 inches) and any measurement you make will measure the same. That is the ratio of measurements taken by the rulers in motion will still be the standard Pi.

ANS: Here is where you go wrong. As indicated above the ratio of measurements is still the same because the rulers change by the same amounts as the components being measured; hence they measure the same. Measuring the same 31.4....n feet divided by 10 feet is still 3.14....n.

Even though to a bystander at rest 31.4 feet is now (31.4/3) and the 10 foot radius is (10/2). or 10.4666/5 = 2.09333 ratio. So to the bystander the ratio has changed and the calulated Pi changed, and does imply an alternate geometry.

But that has never been opposed. The opposition was that Ryans repeatedly and clearly argued that "AS measured by the moving ruler" Pi changed. I have and still contend that is wholly false for the logical and reasons given above in the examples.

ANS: Again not as defined and argued. That is true for the bystander measuring at rest with a ruler at rest but it is not true when measured by rulers in motion with the disk. And this is what started the arguement in the first place.

I lambasted Brian Greene's "the elequent universe" because he specifically gave the example of changing Pi which clearly discussed the measurements being made by an observer crawling along the rotating radius and made the statement that since his ruler would shrink do to the motion, etc, etc., that Pi had changed. I pointed out this flaw in the presentation showing that if the ruler changed so did the circumferenceby the same amounts hence, no change in calculated pi.

Ryan's naturally took exception to my statements and proceeded to lambst me for being stupid and added GR change to the radius and proceeded to argue that is where the change in Pi occured.

I don't like responding in kind but this whole series of defending Relativity by attacking me and not simply acknowledging the flaw in the presentation is absolutely ludricrus.

I have not and have stated, I do not oppose, Lorentz Contraction but the presention is flawed and in error. That is all I have said and all I have argued. The responses have argued I just don't understand. I do understand apparently better than many here why that presentation is wrong.

It doesn't even fit the descriptions they have been giving to defend it.

ANS: Perhaps I should just roll over and let absolute falsehoods be published herein and not highlite obvious flaws.

I think not, I think one of these days someone (most likely you) will stop attacking me and think about what I have said and what you (the group) are saying and then perhaps find enough courage to admit the error and apologize.

ANS: Rescripted from your response above reply to properly define the current issue.

**********************************************
People who are willing to accept SciForum's version of science without question mostly have their queries dealt with very quickly here.

People who fight for real science every step of the way generally find that science is a solid edifice which stands up very well to the unvieling of misrepresentations of the ignorant posing as spokespersons of science.

(James R., I don't hold you in this light but you still haven't crossed the hump). Give it a few minutes to sink in.

Thanks.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
***********************************************

Last edited: Aug 21, 2003
8. ### VortexxSkull & Bones SpokesmanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,242
I am convinced Mac

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Thanks

Vortexx,

Thank you. It would be nice to see some others come forward also. To many riding the sidelines and enjoying the view.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

10. ### AndersHermanssonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
334
I also think you have the wrong idea here. Yes, the ruler of the circumference shrinks 1/3. Yes, the ruler of the radius shrinks 1/2. From their perspective. Thus, the only way for Euclidean geometry to hold here is if you could be a spectator on all of those places at the same time, which of course doesn't make any sense at all. You're bound to be a spectator on ONE of those locations and when you are, you will see that the ratio of circumference must change value.

Last edited: Aug 21, 2003
11. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Presentation

AndersHermansson,

ANS: Reading your response, I believe you either meant from a "By-stander at rest", since neither moving observer sees any change from their perspective. Taken from the view of the bystander we would agree. But I don't agree that you have to be in two places at the same time.

The presentation that was made that started this diatribe was two persons were involved. We will call them Joe and Bill, since I have forgotten the original presentation names given.

The presentation had Joe measure the circumference with his ruler and Bill measure the radius of a merry-go-round at rest.

Then had Joe Crawl around the rim and re-measure and Bill re-measure the radius while in motion and then proceeded to make the statement that the measured ratios had changed.

So once again, I am not in disagreement that as viewed from a bystander at rest, that the Pi ratio changes. It does.

But that has never been the arguement.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Last edited: Aug 21, 2003
12. ### AndersHermanssonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
334
Oh I think I can see what you mean now. The example is clearly flawed. Although I can't see the meaning in debating it

13. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
I think we agree

AndersHermansson,

ANS: Assuming by your post that you mean you see the flaw in the presentation (Not my rejection of it) we are in agreement.

We are also in agreement as to why this should have ever become an extended debate. It seemed pretty obvious to me in the first instance, But what I got for disagreeing with it was a lot of slanderous name calling crap and claims of things that had nothing to do with the initial flaw I had pointed out.

It isn't in my character to just roll over and pretend I was wrong when I wasn't.

Thanks.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

14. ### AndersHermanssonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
334
Yes I mean the presentation. I think I saw it in my highschool textbook. Kind of got me going "wtf?" aswell. Now, I keep in mind that most of the stuff in high-school textbooks are a bit over-simplified. I think some of the clarity gets lost in the overly-ambitious attempt to clarify it. This is why I love reading University-level text-books. Hopefully I will get there next year.

15. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Good Luck

AndersHermansson,

Good luck. I think you will do well.

PS: This "Presentation" came from "the elegant universe" by Brian Greene. String Theory yet. And this kind of error?

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

16. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Einsteins Words

Ryan,

Ether and the Theory of Relativity

Albert Einstein
on May 5th, 1920, in
the University of Leyden

********* Extracts from Einstein's Speech ****************

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,....................

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.

************************************************

Einstein would really be pissed at you guys if he were still around.
Oh, but I forgot you are smarter than Einstein. (aimed at those only if the shoe fits)

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2003
17. ### CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
MacM,

1. The speech was at the university of "Leiden".
2. Your last remark shows that you are not interested anymore in learning something about special relativity or general relativity (which is need in this case). I hereby will stop with commenting. I have tried, and let me say that everytime you accused me of being a stubborn ass, I laughed out loud everytime.

Bye!

Crisp

18. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Crisp,

ANS: Thanks for the corrective note, although I didn't type Leyden. That was the way it is listed.

ANS: For what it is worth I don't think I have ever called you a stubborn ass. And add to that that I find you generally fair. Let me clarify not only for you but others here that those closing comments only apply to the 2 - 3 and they know who they are.

Thanks for pointing out my rather overly broad condemnation.

And finally please understand there is a huge differance in learning and being spoon fed crap. I can't recall every finding your post fitting that category, even though we don't always agree.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
MacM:

I have an innate distrust of the ellipsis.

<i>"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,...................."</i>

What comes after the word "ether" in this quote?

<i>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.</i>

Note: Einstein is not saying space or time has any "substance" in the sense in which the term "ether" was previously used. He is redefining the term - explicitly using it in a quite different sense than, for example, Michelson and Morley used the term.

Bottom line: quotes taken out of context don't count for much.

20. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104

ANS: Full paragraph follows:

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

ANS: The problem here is that the conclusion that things are justified because of the result of general theory of relativity, is being given greater emphasis than the fact that he says an ether can be maintained and if one were maintained and pursued identical results could flow. Then and only then would relativity be a complete theory. It would have a cause and might well gain some additional meaning once the ether was fully understood.

ANS: I don't disagree an ether will necessarily be different than originally anticipated but it is ether none the less. And should remain a goal to study or measure it.

ANS: The context hasn't changed. I have been horsewhipped for having posted an ether topic and yet Einstein still refers to an ether. That is an entirely different position than those being posted here in response.

A professional response would have simply stated that ether according to Einstien is a different ether than originally anticipated. There would have been no arguement to such a response. But they choose to attack me rather than remain professional. I understand that is more fun.

As always your post remain professional.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Thanks.

21. ### VortexxSkull & Bones SpokesmanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,242
Prediction,

Aether, Higgs field and Spin Gravity ARE just different names for the same pet dog.

We have been looking at it from different angles and only scratched the surface.... It will take the new really large high energy accellerators to see what lies beneath the surface.

Expect big news in 2005 when CERN will have their huge particle accelerator online, until that time, keep the flamewar alive!

22. ### CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
Vortexx,

I can assure you that they are not. Spin gravity is something Zarkov came up with, and aether and Higgs field. .. well, they are just two completely different things. The one is related with mass, the other with a medium for light to propagate in.

Bye!

Crisp

23. ### VortexxSkull & Bones SpokesmanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,242
For the time being, I take your word for it, Let me get touch that topic again after the experiments by CERN