Einstein did not prove or disprove or advocate an ether theory. He did
dispel ether with any mechanical characteristics, which is what Cecil
was talking about (at least he implied with his reference from an
Einstein speec) and what I also have said before but hel did not
recognize. From Cecil's earlier reference the following paragraph
(from a speech long after 1905 by A. Einstein) is found:

"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 (but) only we must give up ascribing a definite
state of motion to it, i.e. we must *by abstraction* (dfinn emphasis)
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."

A key word is "abstraction". That is what the philosopher Kostro does
not understand. Johnny Smith, in plain English this whole exercise
means that Einstein reflected that forces (in this case gravitational)
can be considered to act on space, primarily. The force's effect on
mass would then be a secondary condition that occurs due to the
force's distortion of space. It is a rather cool way of looking at
things...it is an acceptable way of conceptualizing the universe.
Looking at space in such a way allows us to consider that "absolute
empty" space must be "something" because forces act on it. Light
follows space. Space directs the transport of light in a way that is
fully dependent on the forces acting on space. The something can be
referred to as a type of ether which directs the the transport of
light. But this ether is an abstraction, depending upon whether you
consider space or mass to be the "primary" entity upon which the
forces act. Now Johnny, I really "get" the additional things that you
are saying (they are things that have no relationship to this
concept). You are calling your ether something that is material, which
Einstein definitely ruled out in the Special Theory in 1905. You drag
out the well-known hypothesess about the exotic matter stuff, with
particles popping in and out of physical form in space-time and
neutinos or whatever and call the physical matter (or perhaps exotic
matter) "the ether". Even though Einstein ruled that out material
ether in 1905, let us bring back the material ether once again for
nostalgic purposes. We then find that these exotic/physical matter
alternations do not occupy all of space all of the time. This means
some parts of space truly are absolutely "empty" some of the time.
What is there to propagate your light waves at those points in space-
time when the material ether is not there and the space is absolutely
empty? hmmmm...and to add insult to injury, Cecil is faced with the
prospect that at some coordinates in space, some of the time, there
exists "nothing" some of the time. I agree with Einstein's *abstract*
ether in exactly the same way that Einstein does: only when you
consider space the primary. But no one says I must take space as the
primary; to me it is still more obvious that matter should be the
primary, where no ether is required or indicated.

wrote:
[ignorant chit we know well]

When a guy gets it wrong, and is corrected, and gets it wrong again, and
is corrected, etc. ... he is an idiot.

You have given idiot new meaning; you have take in word idiot to new
heights, and you have not stopped there. There has yet to be a name
given to the gobble-de-gook you spew.

I am sure they will give you that Guinness Record now!, once a name for
it has been determined ... sad, so very sad ...

The personal attacks are a dime a dozen and done here daily ... not even
an honorable mention given for those.

Regards,
JS

wrote:
[ ... ]

And, in conclusion ... plonk ... thread plonk ...

.... good luck ... bye ...

JS

On Sep 19, 9:13*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

[ ... ]

And, in conclusion ... plonk ... thread plonk ...

... good luck ... bye ...

JS

Thanks Johnny, that's what I wanted. You're number 1
@
@
@@@@

wrote:
Einstein did not prove or disprove or advocate an ether theory.

On the contrary, he said in 1920: "According to the general
theory of relativity, *space without ether is unthinkable*; ..."

From Cecil's earlier reference the following paragraph
(from a speech long after 1905 by A. Einstein) is found:
"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory
of relativity does not compel us to deny ether."

Could be, but what about the general theory of relativity
which came later? You seem to be missing the fact that Einstein's
statement applies to the *special theory of relativity* which
preceded the *general theory of relativity* about which Einstein
said in 1920:

"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."

According to Einstein, the ether is a necessary requirement
for the general theory of relativity to be valid. Without ether,
there would obviously be no propagation of RF either. As I said
earlier, EM waves cannot propagate through absolute nothing and
I am just agreeing with Einstein.

Einstein reflected that forces (in this case gravitational)
can be considered to act on space, primarily. The force's effect on
mass would then be a secondary condition that occurs due to the
force's distortion of space.

You have a built-in contradiction there. If gravity can distort
space, then space consists of particles upon which gravity can
act (in accordance with the tenets of quantum physics). They may
be exotic particles but particles nonetheless.

You are calling your ether something that is material, which
Einstein definitely ruled out in the Special Theory in 1905.

But by 1920, Einstein had reintroduced a physical either as
a necessary condition for the general theory of relativity
to be valid.

Quantum Physics tells us that everything that exists exists
as particles. If that is true, then everything that exists
is indeed "material" although ether is most likely an "exotic
material" like (or maybe the same as) dark-matter/dark-energy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith wrote:
You have given idiot new meaning; you have take in word idiot to new
heights, and you have not stopped there. There has yet to be a name
given to the gobble-de-gook you spew.

e.g.
1. Transmission line currents are common-mode.
2. Richard Feynman was not a quantum physicist.
3. Ether is not required for propagation of light waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
You have given idiot new meaning; you have take in word idiot to new
heights, and you have not stopped there. There has yet to be a name
given to the gobble-de-gook you spew.

e.g.
1. Transmission line currents are common-mode.
2. Richard Feynman was not a quantum physicist.
3. Ether is not required for propagation of light waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

-------------

All of this chatter is really a contest to see who will lose their self
control and scream, "IT'S AETHER, DAMN IT - NOT ETHER!!!".

But I'm not gonna fall for that. Nosiree!!! G


Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:
All of this chatter is really a contest to see who will lose their self
control and scream, "IT'S AETHER, DAMN IT - NOT ETHER!!!".

Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

In most of science, God is unthinkable. But then, God said he won't do
tricks for non-believers. "The fool in his heart says there is no God"

I can't conceive of God being a medium, but perhaps he is all that and much
more. There is no "nothingness" Philosophically. Only degrees of scarcity
of something that we perceive or expect to be there. Space is predominantly
empty of matter but there is some from time to time. Perhaps the stars,
planets and other phenomenon are there to keep the space clean. We don't
fully know what we don't perceive (damn little enough what we DO perceive) .
"Ether" is a supposed medium that facilitates an operational paradigm.

Bottom line is: Not all things must be theoretically proven to be
practically utilized. The fact that a theory is practically utilized in a
given application, does not infer that theory is infallible. For instance,
in the application that at any given instant we are oriented with respect to
the tangent of the Earth's surface. So that for the case that we are
instantaneously at one point on the Earth, it doesn't matter if the Earth is
flat, round, oblong or Spherical, even though it has been proven otherwise.
Likewise, to think that an experiment that uses a particular theory and is
successful will fully prove that theory over another yet to come is foolish.

So, conclusions based on application of far reaching theories should be held
at arms length that we might maintain our objectivity. After all, Einstein
and Newton both died before they could achieve a unified theory of the
universe. Nor do I expect those still living will either. For now, none of
them have been proved infallible.

"FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was
conceptual place so an antenna with a known potential at it's terminals
could be evaluated without ground effects. Is there truly a difference for
our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in
reasonably dry air?

Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

In most of science, God is unthinkable. But then, God said he won't do
tricks for non-believers. "The fool in his heart says there is no God"

I can't conceive of God being a medium, but perhaps he is all that and much
more. There is no "nothingness" Philosophically. Only degrees of scarcity
of something that we perceive or expect to be there. Space is predominantly
empty of matter but there is some from time to time. Perhaps the stars,
planets and other phenomenon are there to keep the space clean. We don't
fully know what we don't perceive (damn little enough what we DO perceive) .
"Ether" is a supposed medium that facilitates an operational paradigm.

Bottom line is: Not all things must be theoretically proven to be
practically utilized. The fact that a theory is practically utilized in a
given application, does not infer that theory is infallible. For instance,
in the application that at any given instant we are oriented with respect to
the tangent of the Earth's surface. So that for the case that we are
instantaneously at one point on the Earth, it doesn't matter if the Earth is
flat, round, oblong or Spherical, even though it has been proven otherwise.
Likewise, to think that an experiment that uses a particular theory and is
successful will fully prove that theory over another yet to come is foolish.

So, conclusions based on application of far reaching theories should be held
at arms length that we might maintain our objectivity. After all, Einstein
and Newton both died before they could achieve a unified theory of the
universe. Nor do I expect those still living will either. For now, none of
them have been proved infallible.

"FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was
conceptual place so an antenna with a known potential at it's terminals
could be evaluated without ground effects. Is there truly a difference for
our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in
reasonably dry air?