[jsaldea12 (OP)]

I agree, too..that there exist gravitational fields that bind earth and moon, and sun and Milky Way. Whatever is that on which the bind is made (that visibly raises millions of tons on earth)has substance, Who  questions that there is an invisible substance on which the bind is made as evidenced by the ocular raising of millions of tons of water on earth?.Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.

jsaldea12

2.27.10

[Bored chemist]

"Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, "
Vincent just took the trouble to tell you exactly what difference it does make.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Bored chemist, how about trying to have a grip of reality?


jsaldea12

2.28.10

[Madidus_Scientia]

lol

[Bored chemist]

Bored chemist, how about trying to have a grip of reality?


jsaldea12

2.28.10

I'm sure that most people will understand if I keep a grip on my reality, rather than trying to get to grips with yours.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

bUT IT IS MY PLEASURE TO KNOW YOU....WE ARE BOTH MEN OF SCIENCE.  REGARDS.


JSALDEA12

2.29.10

[Bored chemist]

Then try learning stuff.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

You still dont believe aether, spacetime exists, do you,a chemist.


jsaldea12

3.1.10

[BenV]

You still dont believe aether, spacetime exists, do you,a chemist.

How many times?  He is saying that what you are calling aether, everyone else calls spacetime - he's not denying that spacetime exists.

Vincent explained very neatly why these should be separate entities (thanks Vincent).

[Bored chemist]

You still dont believe aether, spacetime exists, do you,a chemist.


jsaldea12

3.1.10

Trust me I know exactly what ether is- I'm a chemist- and what aether is- it's an old myth like phlogiston or N rays.

I also know that spacetime is real. I'm in it.
What you don't understand is that it no more helpful or sensible to call spacetime "aether" than it is to call it  breakfast cereal.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

How come you cannot grasp the similarity? Eliminating the luminousity feature of aether of the old, we have the same banana in the revived aether of Dr. Einstein. All the added features of Dr. Einstein would fit in into the same aether, old and new.


jsaldea12

3.2.10

[Bored chemist]

A cow and a horse have some similarity- they both have 4 legs, eat grass, have hair etc.
but that doesn't make them the same.
Calling a horse a cow is just plain wrong. Calling spacetime Aether is just as wrong.

[Paradigmer]

How come you cannot grasp the similarity? Eliminating the luminousity feature of aether of the old, we have the same banana in the revived aether of Dr. Einstein. All the added features of Dr. Einstein would fit in into the same aether, old and new.

See a significant event for physics in November 1915 that had led to the current definition for spacetime in mathematical relativism, this is the famously known "Einstein–Hilbert action" that was established in proof theory.

The current dominating thought in definitions for spacetime in modern physics is entirely different from the classical aether, and eliminating the luminosity feature of aether is a strange proposition that is kind of attacking the straw-man in classical physics that is not relevant to modern physics definitions for spacetime at all.

Einstein had an æ-theory, this is the Einstein aether theory that describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the æther. In particular this theory has a preferred reference frame and so is not Lorentz covariant that had achieved scientific consensus.

Make a distinction between the original spacetime defined by Einstein that is aether-liked (I can see you are going in this direction but somehow you did not focus on this), from  the mathematical relativism defined spacetime that is widely accepted in modern physics, then people will not think that you are confused and have misconceptions with the classical aether and the modern physics spacetime. You could then narrow down your arguments that is propositioned for the Einstein's spacetime  that is against the spacetime of mathematical relativism, but how you carry out your arguments and are your arguments valid or not would be another issue.   

However, imho, your sticky argument on eliminating the luminousity feature of old aether to posit  this as the new aether and this is the same entity as the modern physics spacetime would get you nowhere.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

…if that your concept that aether of the old is different from the aether, as revived by Dr. Einstein, or is different from his spacetime.. I would rather now not make comment to change it. It is not good.   Regards.


Jsaldea12


3.3.10


,

[Bored chemist]

"Eliminating the luminousity feature of aether of the old"
LOL.
The full name of the old fashioned ether was "the luminiferous ether"
i.e. the ether that carries light. If you eliminate the luminosity feature there's nothing left.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

The full name of the old fashioned ether was "the luminiferous ether"
i.e. the ether that carries light. If you eliminate the luminosity feature there's nothing left.Beg to disagree, bored chemist. Eliminating luminosity feature, we have new aether of Dr. Einstein, spacetime.

Regards.

jsaldea12

3.18.10

[Bored chemist]

Are you calling this different thing by the same name because you want to confuse others, or because you are confused yourself?
Neither is helpful or good science.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Fundamental concept of aether of the old is that it  occupies completely all of outer space, the same fundamental concept of spacetime of Dr. Einstein that completely occupies all of outer space.. Both same fundamental concepts cannot exist different from one another, ..because it is universally known, unquestionably, that there is only one and same substance that occupies completely all of outer space. But progress in science, evolment in science has detected erroneous concept of the old,..such as luminiferous aether which is not luminiferous.


Jsaldea12

3.18.10

[Bored chemist]

No, the fundamental concept of the ether was that it was the thing that carried light.
That was the sole purpose of positing it.
If you take away the light carrying aspect of it then there's absolutely nothing left.

Also, the ether may have been thought to occupy space but space-time is the space the ether was meant to occupy.
It's like saying I am the same as my house.

"unquestionably"
Bollocks. I'm questioning it.

"But progress in science, evolment in science has detected erroneous concept of the old,..such as luminiferous aether which is not luminiferous. "
That's why science dropped the ether just like it dropped phlogiston.
Why are you so hell bent on trying to confuse it with the concept of space-time?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Time will tell. Regards.


jsaldea12

3.19.10