Activism Discussion: Ether Abandoned!

Ether Abandoned!
Posts: 11

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Brian Redman
2005-06-25 09:32:43 EST
Ether Abandoned!

(Conspiracy Nation, 06/25/05) -- The Ether, once useful to "scientists,"
has been callously tossed aside.

Some wrongly take this to mean The Ether has been "terminated." Not so.
Instead, the "scientists" decided it was "no longer necessary" and
simply abandoned it.

Stated The Ether, "No two-weeks notice! No severance pay! After all I
did for them!"

But one "scientist" complained that The Ether was "always resting" and
so doomed itself to unemployment.

The Ether has posted a "want ad" in the classified section of several
newspapers:
Situation Wanted: The Ether, formerly useful to "scientists," now tossed
aside. Am a tenuous gas having the rigidity of steel. Cannot relocate
since am at "absolute rest" in "absolute space." Contact me via
19th-century physicists.

In "Tall Tales Of 'Science'"
(http://www.shout.net/~bigred/TallTales.html), Conspiracy Nation had
explained how the "scientists," after a hard day of measuring things,
like to unwind at the Humbug Tavern. There, they trade tall tales about
the universe. This is corroborated by one of the "scientists"
themselves, Gustav Kirchhoff. He did not like all the yarns being told
and insisted that "Concern with first causes or final reasons was to be
excluded from the scientific endeavor as fruitless, or hopeless (if not
meaningless)." Kirchhoff complained that "Even the notion of explanation
was suspect." ("Positivism." Encyclopedia Britannica 2005 electronic
reference)

But the "scientists" disregarded Kirchhoff and continued their habit of
exchanging "whoppers."

One of the premiere leg-pullers of the claque, Albert Einstein, had
caused much merriment at the Humbug Tavern when he had denied "time" to
exist independently of motion. Building upon the measurement mindset
which noticed that "motion" cannot be measured without "time," Einstein
had extrapolated extremely "rapid" motion would cause "time" to slow
down. This "brought down the house" at the Humbug gathering and peals of
laughter could be heard from outside.

Later, a subsequent yarn by Einstein caused The Ether to be abandoned.

"Einstein knifed me in the back," bitterly complained The Ether.

One evening, Einstein had tired of all the talk about "absolute motion."
"Let's just say it is impossible to measure 'absolute motion,' and get
rid of it with one fell swoop," he said. "But we would need some new
yarns," replied some of the "scientists" at the Humbug Tavern. Einstein
puffed and puffed on his pipe. "What is he smoking?" some wondered. At
last, his eyes lighted up and a mischievous smile was seen. "We can say,
all 'motion' is relative to arbitrary objects taken to be at rest. And
that no objects at all are more really 'at rest' than any other."

"The theory of relativity," writes Isaac Asimov, "does not flatly state
that an ether does not exist. It does, however, remove the need for one,
and if it is not needed, why bother with it?" (Understanding Physics
Vol. II, ch. 8) So, under the new zeitgeist, The Ether, at "absolute
rest," was not needed to measure "motion."

Abandoned in "absolute space," The Ether retorts, "I am in no hurry. I'm
not going anywhere. The 'scientists' are the ones who are in 'relative
motion.' As for me, I can sit and wait."

-------
Conspiracy Nation
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html


Martin
2005-06-25 11:51:02 EST
Brian Redman wrote:
> Ether Abandoned!

is there a point to all this you're posting - or is it just to hear your
own voice?

Martin
2005-06-25 11:57:53 EST
oh, I should have pointed out that you got the speed of light wrong two
posts ago. What does that say about the rest of the crap you've been
posting?

B*@shout.net
2005-06-26 03:17:09 EST
Speed of light was taken from Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov.
That is a fairly credible source. If it's "wrong," then what do you say
the speed of light is? Thanks.


Martin
2005-06-26 06:20:22 EST
b*d@shout.net wrote:
> Speed of light was taken from Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov.
> That is a fairly credible source. If it's "wrong," then what do you say
> the speed of light is? Thanks.

The assumption made is that the speed of light is measured, it isn't.
The speed of light is defined. From the definition of the speed of light
comes the metre, and second, again, these are defined and not measured.

Oh yes, I think it's 299792458 ms^-1 in free space.

It's about time the kg was defined rather than measured, x moles of a
specific isotope of lead, or something similar.

B*@shout.net
2005-06-26 09:24:12 EST
Yes, Wikipedia reference on Speed of Light (SOL) gives your figure,
299,792,458 meters per second. The reference translates your figure
into 186,282.4 miles per second. My figure, given in a previous report,
was 186,281.7 miles per second. This number was taken from volume 2 of
Isaac Asimov's "Understanding Physics."

As to your assertion that light is not measured, but defined: again,
the Wikipedia reference supports your statement. Nonetheless, as
documented in "Can It Be Measured?"
(http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Measured.html), light was painstakingly
measured. Can it be that Speed of Light as measured is 186,281.7 miles
per second but Speed of Light as defined is 186,282.4 miles per second?


Martin
2005-06-26 11:14:05 EST
b*d@shout.net wrote:
> Yes, Wikipedia reference on Speed of Light (SOL) gives your figure,
> 299,792,458 meters per second.

I'd prefer to refer to a national physical laboratory - but there you go :)

> The reference translates your figure
> into 186,282.4 miles per second.

no idea, never work in miles

> My figure, given in a previous report,
> was 186,281.7 miles per second. This number was taken from volume 2 of
> Isaac Asimov's "Understanding Physics."

out of date

> As to your assertion that light is not measured, but defined: again,
> the Wikipedia reference supports your statement. Nonetheless, as
> documented in "Can It Be Measured?"
> (http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Measured.html), light was painstakingly
> measured.

out of date

> Can it be that Speed of Light as measured is 186,281.7 miles
> per second but Speed of Light as defined is 186,282.4 miles per second?

no

seeing as length and time are derived from the speed of light they for a
set of axioms that cannot be (well, are not) self-contradictory. You'd
either have to redefine the metre or redefine the second.

I STILL don't understand your point in posting all this pseudo stuff.

The Ghost In The Machine
2005-06-26 13:00:03 EST
sci.physics added; followups reset thereto.

In alt.conspiracy, Martin
<martin_nospam@btinternet.com>
wrote
on Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:14:05 +0100
<42bec632$0$23946$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>:
> bigred@shout.net wrote:
>> Yes, Wikipedia reference on Speed of Light (SOL) gives your figure,
>> 299,792,458 meters per second.
>
> I'd prefer to refer to a national physical laboratory - but there you go :)

Will NIST do? :-)

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

>
>> The reference translates your figure
>> into 186,282.4 miles per second.
>
> no idea, never work in miles

Google says 299792458 m/s / (1 mile/s) = 186282.397 miles/s.

[rest snipped]

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

B*@shout.net
2005-06-28 07:01:48 EST
As to your "not understanding your point in posting all this pseudo
stuff," see latest Conspiracy Nation, "Insipid Realities," just posted
to this newsgroup (hasn't shown up as of this writing) or available at
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Insipid.html


Wm James
2005-06-28 09:33:02 EST
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:20:22 +0100, Martin
<martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:

>*d@shout.net wrote:
>> Speed of light was taken from Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov.
>> That is a fairly credible source. If it's "wrong," then what do you say
>> the speed of light is? Thanks.
>
>The assumption made is that the speed of light is measured, it isn't.
>The speed of light is defined. From the definition of the speed of light
>comes the metre, and second, again, these are defined and not measured.

The speed of light was actually first measured centuries ago, in 1676
by Olaf Roemer who came up with 2.14 x 10**8, which is pretty good
considering the technology of the time and that he was doing it by
calcutating the difference in the periods of eclipse of jupiter's
moons when the earth was moving in toward and away from it. And later
in 1849 was measured mechanically by Armand Fizeau.

>Oh yes, I think it's 299792458 ms^-1 in free space.

2.99792458 x 10**8 meters per second, or roughly 186,000 miles per
second., yes.

>It's about time the kg was defined rather than measured, x moles of a
>specific isotope of lead, or something similar.

It is defined already as 1000 grams. A gram is also defined. A cubic
centimeter of water is one gram. You are confusing it was a "gram
atom", which is one mole of an element.

William R. James

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron