This Google web interface places limits on my posting so I guess I
will have to put in my last word on this, assuming I can still get
this posted. "John" may be rsponsible for my posting problems. My
response is as follows:

Cecil is referring to the (abstract) ether of the general
theory...Please understand that Einstein was saying that space itself
is an "ether" IF you consider space to be the primary force acted upon
by gravitation because space then "controls" phenomemon of light
propagation. Space is "manipulating" the light path in accordance with
gravitational forces present; it acts like a medium, like an "ether".
It is like Cecil and "John" are reading a parable in the Bible and
they are reading the story literally without looking for the essence
of the story. He was not speaking about an ether as a physical entity
that really exists in material form in a motionless, non-relativistic
setting that most of us find ourselves in (we are not photons). It is
an abstraction for us. Do abstractions exist? Yes. As physical
entities? No. Can you physically measure an infinitely large number of
infinitely small rectangle under a curve? No. Can you compute the area
under the curve by use of calculus which uses that principle? Yes. The
Einsteinian ether you are referring to is as much an abstraction in
our non-relativistic existence as the Newtonian infinitely small
rectangles of a calculus integral, i.e. an abstraction.

wrote:
He [Einstein] was not speaking about an ether as a physical entity
that really exists in material form ...

Einstein said: "... we may say that according to the general
theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities ...
According to the general theory of relativity, space without
ether is unthinkable."

I don't recall Einstein saying that his ether was just an
abstraction devoid of physical qualities. In fact, he said
space is indeed endowed with physical qualities. And that
was long before dark-matter/dark-energy theory had been
introduced.

Quantum Physics tells us that everything that exists exists
as particles.

We have not discovered all of the particles. We may not even
have conceived of all the particles. We have accounted for
approximately 5% of the material that exists in the universe.
It doesn't take a genius to postulate that some of the missing
material may be in the structure that keeps space from collapsing
into absolute nothingness.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
He [Einstein] was not speaking about an ether as a physical entity
that really exists in material form in a motionless, non-relativistic
setting that most of us find ourselves in (we are not photons). It is
an abstraction for us. Do abstractions exist? Yes. As physical
entities? No.

Would you please explain to all of us how gravity can
distort an abstraction? Good Grief!
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 20, 12:19*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
He [Einstein] was not speaking about an ether as a physical entity
that really exists in material form in a motionless, non-relativistic
setting that most of us find ourselves in (we are not photons). It is
an abstraction for us. Do abstractions exist? Yes. As physical
entities? No.

Would you please explain to all of us how gravity can
distort an abstraction? Good Grief!
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Good Grief indeed. You are reduced to playing word games. The physical
operant of gravitational force from an entity of mass is another
entity of mass or one with the some of the physical qualities of mass
such as light. Since the gravitational force between 2 or more
entities may affect the space between such entities, we can form the
abstraction which considers that gravitational force distorts space as
the primary operant of this force and its effects on mass and light
are secondary results of the distortion of space. In your posts you
have surprisingly chosen to view space as the latter (abstract view)
giving almost no consideration to the physical view where matter-to-
matter is the primary operant. I prefer the physical view because I
reference my thinking as an oberserver at rest. A big problem with
chosing the abstract view (matter-space operant) is that it depends
upon no future findings ever being discovered that would alter the
theory upon which it is based, But I agree, IF the General Relativity
theory is ever proven to be an endpoint upon which no additional
finding can ever be found, and you know this will never be the case,
then according to the 1920's abstract view, space itself must be *the*
ether for light (as least, as far as the "light" is concerned). This
non-material ether "with Physical qualities" as Einstein calls it, can
never be observed or measured because it is an abstraction to us at
rest. Your view can never be proven false until such time as the
general theory is modified which will not happen in our life time.
This puts you on safe ground in that you cannot lose the argument.
Neither can you win. I can see that you are about 75% there in
"getting" relativity...you can't get there with word games. I suggest
you confine your concepts of the physical world to 4 dimensions where
you, the observer are at rest. Everything you see in that setting is
your "physical" word". From there you can conceptualize the universe
as if your were an observer at relativistic speeds. Everything in that
world is an abstraction. Then consider that physical elements and
abstract elements of an observation can be true at the same time even
if they seem to contradict each other in one or the other setting. But
never mix up the two universes as you are doing right now. Finis.

wrote:
In your posts you
have surprisingly chosen to view space as the latter (abstract view)

When someone starts lying about my posts, I classify him
as an unethical SOB and now you are in that classification.
You are the one who said the ether concept is an abstraction.
For the record, I believe the ether is absolutely real and
that we simply do not yet understand its nature.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

On Sep 20, 10:45*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
In your posts you
have surprisingly chosen to view space as the latter (abstract view)

When someone starts lying about my posts, I classify him
as an unethical SOB and now you are in that classification.

No more Mr. Nice Guy huh?

You are the one who said the ether concept is an abstraction.
For the record, I believe the ether is absolutely real and
that we simply do not yet understand its nature.

Phlogiston was real until we understood its nature.

wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:45 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
In your posts you
have surprisingly chosen to view space as the latter (abstract view)

When someone starts lying about my posts, I classify him
as an unethical SOB and now you are in that classification.

No more Mr. Nice Guy huh?

I apologize for the outburst (augmented by wine). One
of my pet peaves is someone trying to engage in mind
fornication using my mind. Please don't do that again.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:45 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
In your posts you
have surprisingly chosen to view space as the latter (abstract view)

When someone starts lying about my posts, I classify him
as an unethical SOB and now you are in that classification.

No more Mr. Nice Guy huh?

I apologize for the outburst (augmented by wine). One
of my pet peaves is someone trying to engage in mind
fornication using my mind. Please don't do that again.

Pot kettle, kettle pot.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH