I forget about the sombering politics of physics sometimes *sigh*.LunarSabbathTruth wrote:
"What kind of shackle are they “forbidden” by?? ...."
It is called "Peer Review", and their jobs and reputation depend on it.
- joe
Well said. Very much enjoyed the succinct scope expressed in that. It would have been just as enjoyable regardless of what term would have been used (aether in this case) to express it because The Fundamental Principle, historically, far exceeds the various naming conventions (Seas, Oceans, Vacuum, Energy, Aether etc.).saul wrote:
...we can see that magnetic fields in one place don't necessarily mean magnetic fields in another. The observable properties of the aether (E,B,m,g_uv,..) change from place to place - and one way to describe this is that the "parts" are doing something different in one place than they are doing in another. I find it very useful to visualize it as a fluid, this is simply a useful technique for describing physics of almost everything.
That is true.saul wrote:I totally agree! I will add the caveat that Mr Einstein certainly never tried to rid humanity of this most useful concept, he was quite clear that he believed in the concept and that his relativity theories are in fact aether theories.Solar wrote:
The brief list of Aether, and/or Aether-type, theories mentioned earlier is to show that NO ONE, not even dear Mr. Einstein, will ever rid humanity of this intrinsic concept howsoever it has been expressed, or will become expressed through science.
A running commentary on Einstein's "Aether and the Theory of Relativity (<---needs to be STUDIED)
For the speech at Leyden it needs to be taken into account that Einstien was entertaining serval “positions” with regard to several speculations as to the nature of The Aether up to that era. This becomes apparent when he simply says so with “The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things…”
The speech waxes and wanes with Einstein giving his thoughts on multiple Aether approaches that existed at that time (Lorentz, Mach, Maxwell, “the Aether of the General Theory of Relativity” specifically being mentioned as well, Fizeau, Newton, Hertz etc). All of these, and their implications, were being touched on during the speech including the “position” that The Aether might not exist at all. The later “position” was but one of many that were being considered! Unfortunately, it has come to pass (for some) that Einstein’s overview has been grossly misunderstood as being dismissive. It never was.
Historically, along with perusing several “positions”, there were the various interferometry experiments trying to detect a “stationary” and/or “dragged” electromagnetic medium. Another way to look at this is to consider that the interferometer experiments did not rule out the existence of The Aether. Instead, the beleaguered interferometry experiments ruled out the dominant hypothesis of The Aether as a “fixed”, “stationary” and/or “dragged” medium.
Generally speaking, it appears that, the variety of efforts during that time were blindsided by an unfound certainty in thinking of The Aether as a “stationary”, “fixed”, “dragged”, electromagnetic medium. Just a stagnant haze of electromagnetic radiation everywhere the same. The CMB constitutes and electromagnetic "reference frame" doesn't it? Wasn't such a thing not supposed to exist either?
This is the very same certainty that saw the existence of Geocentricism, then Heliocentrisim, then Galactocentrism, and the current big bang centrism endure for some period of time. These ideologies, or modes of thinking, have to be driven until the wheels fall off and the vehicle gets abandoned by the drivers themselves, as observed throughout history.
In my humble mind no one has ever dealt with the nonexistence of The Aether. Instead, humanity has since dealt with the egoic bliss of unfound certainty with regard to, a historically incorrect Aether approach (There are phases of the Aether that are non-electromagnetic: Gravity for example), coupled with incorrect interferometer interpretations (the test is valid; The Aether is Dynamic instead of "stationary"; the dominant hypothesis was falsified). Cantilever that with simultaneously misunderstanding what Einstein said (he did not deny The Aether).
Perched atop of all of that; Einstein was as just as confused as punch like the rest. Remember: *no one*, including himself, had ‘successfully modeled’ The Aether. There was no agreed upon version of It. Perhaps Einstein simply escaped his own inability to 'model' The Aether by creating his own version of one. It’s kind of like big bang theorist escaping the lack of explanative power surrounding questions of conditions BEFORE the ‘bang’ by hopping into Multiverses before the prior 'model' has been fully explained. I don't see anything but a whole lot of interpretive psychology going on.
Despite not denying The Aether Einstein then went and did something totally bizarre:
Don't get hung up on the provincialisms and naming conventions of pet theories. Be objective and just consider the The Principle. Besides: the speed with which even so much as the thought of enjoying Haagen-Dazs Vanilla has left the speed of gravity in utter chaos!The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment under Limit Conditions – Correa & Correa
Demonstrating Aether Energy – Eugene F. Mallove
Gravity and Its Thermal Anomaly: Was the Reich-Einstein Experiment Evidence of Energy Inflow from the Aether? – Harold Aspden
The Journal of Aethermetric Research <---needs to be STUDIED
