Aether and Relativity by Einstein

[PoPpAScience]

It was so amazing to read this lecture by Albert Einstein in 1920. Here I was listening to people write how Einstein was against the idea of an Aether, which I did not believe. Then here it was, in his own words; Aether and Relativity

His belief can best be summed up in his own words:

"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. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

It is a joy to see once again, Einstein seeing past the the mainstream science of his day, into the science that mainstream science today is still trying to catch up with.

For the last few weeks I have been pondering; "Infinity"(Aether) is not divisible, instead the "Aether" would only "Attenuate", to the only true force, "Centripetal". It is a joy to see that Einstein was thinking along the same lines as I am now.

[Wick]

When Einstiein says that "space is endowed with physical qualities" isn't space what he believes the ether to be? Aren't ether and space synonymous in Einstein's lexicon?

[PoPpAScience]

When Einstiein says that "space is endowed with physical qualities" isn't space what he believes the ether to be? Aren't ether and space synonymous in Einstein's lexicon?

Hi Wick;

That's what I take from his lecture. I did not read any mention of a vacuum. Space is his 'measuring rod', and Time is his 'measuring clock', that he used to express his mathimatical view of manifestations, within an indivisible "Aether".

[munty13]

It's nice to see Einstein contemplating the aether. But why does he say - "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Why not? Maybe it's motion is something we are not yet able to account for, and/or measure. In the same way perhaps, that we find magnetic lines of force invisible unless we cover them with iron filings.


I also wonder, does the aether start to explain why the speed of light in a vacuum is 300, 000 km/s?

[PoPpAScience]

It's nice to see Einstein contemplating the aether. But why does he say - "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Why not? Maybe it's motion is something we are not yet able to account for, and/or measure. In the same way perhaps, that we find magnetic lines of force invisible unless we cover them with iron filings.


I also wonder, does the aether start to explain why the speed of light in a vacuum is 300, 000 km/s?

Hi munty13;

I think the reason he talked about; "The idea of motion may not be applied to it.", is because of his thinking that the Aether is not mechanical like the theories of the past. He, as I do also, see the Aether as motionless and divisionless. The Aether can be 'Attenuated' by "Centripetal" force, but not moved as a whole. Now "Fundamental Building Blocks" created by 'Centripetal force' can move within the Aether, but not the Aether itself.

It is the Motion of all the Centripetal forces that transport the condensed Aether, within the Main body of Aether that is Motionless. The only Motion there is, is a product of Centripetal force.

All the theories of the past see the Aether as mechanical, and in the form of particles. Einstein as I do, see the Aether as 'seamless' and 'motionless'. I call this "Infinity for Eternity". The only nature of the Aether(Infinity for Eternity) is that it can be 'condensed' and 'attenuated' by the "centripetal force'.

[Wick]

It's nice to see Einstein contemplating the aether. But why does he say - "The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Why not? Maybe it's motion is something we are not yet able to account for, and/or measure. In the same way perhaps, that we find magnetic lines of force invisible unless we cover them with iron filings.


I also wonder, does the aether start to explain why the speed of light in a vacuum is 300, 000 km/s?

I agree with you, Munty. I'm of the opinion that space does move, but we do detect it, we just misunderstand what we detect. The trick is that if space moves, it must move along an axis other than those with which we are familiar. Figuring that out will require us to look outside of the box.

My peculiar theory of everything suggest that the motion of space does explain the so-called speed of light. If your interested, I'd invite you to the Resting Light Theory thread. I also beleive there is a motionless medium through which we move (similar to what Allen is suggesting here.)

Regards!

Wick

[Max™]

Why do notes move along a string at the speed they do?

The thickness and composition of the string.

Same with space and light.


I've been saying for a while, Einstein didn't discard the aether, he discarded the aether as being something separate from spacetime, and as a preferred frame of reference. He did that because observations of the Universe don't support those ideas, and then he proposed SR and later GR to explain why.

[dleviwing]

Hi PoPpA;
We have a tendency to view the Aether as an entity called energy or vacuum energy to be more precise. When we detect the movement of the Aether, we also tend to give it a name such as “gravity”, “electromagnetic force”, and so on. Relativity is a mathematical methodology that simply accounts for the Aether in terms that don’t acknowledge the existence of a physical entity as cause. Aether and spacetime are the same thing; they simply evoke different perceptive paradigms in our imaginations.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

I think the reason he talked about; "The idea of motion may not be applied to it.", is because of his thinking that the Aether is not mechanical like the theories of the past. He, as I do also, see the Aether as motionless and divisionless. The Aether can be 'Attenuated' by "Centripetal" force, but not moved as a whole. Now "Fundamental Building Blocks" created by 'Centripetal force' can move within the Aether, but not the Aether itself.

It is the Motion of all the Centripetal forces that transport the condensed Aether, within the Main body of Aether that is Motionless. The only Motion there is, is a product of Centripetal force.

All the theories of the past see the Aether as mechanical, and in the form of particles. Einstein as I do, see the Aether as 'seamless' and 'motionless'. I call this "Infinity for Eternity". The only nature of the Aether(Infinity for Eternity) is that it can be 'condensed' and 'attenuated' by the "centripetal force'.

Hi Allen,

I just noticed that you have started an interesting thread here.

Below are my opinions:

In the classical physics era when aether does not exist was the consensus, Einstein had relentless searched for a singularity theory of the physical universe, against all odds he had discreetly moved in the opposite direction of mainstream science with his spacetime vortex model, published as the general theory of relativity in 1916 it had then began the era of modern physics. In line with the scientific consensus that aether does not exist, he either had thought that space and time are distorted by gravitational forces of celestial objects as postulated with his geometric gravity concept, or in another likely scenario that in circumspection he ingeniously played with the duality of nature by introducing equivalence principle as the background concept of GR, in stealth he thus establishes his spacetime vortex model in a paradoxical manner that conforms with non-existence of aether. After all, space and time are two intrinsic characteristics of nature that could not be physically proven and they are immutable.

Many in the past who had openly held the proposition that aether exist were either prosecuted, discredited, pushed aside or simply left high and dry, iconic characters whom had received such treaments include Rene Descartes, Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell, Paul Dirac, Hannes Alfven, etc. Maxwell equations were originally based on aether as a mechanical model, the original ideal for Lorentz transformation was also based on aether that describes it like a Doppler effect. These theologians were forced to abandon the entity of aether and therefore had reformed their theories in mathematical constructs that are void of aether. In the Newtonian era, if Einstein did not morph aether as spacetime, his theory of relativity would probably be completely dismissed as well.

Evidently, Einstein had held the belief that aether exists throughout his research and that was never let up unlike it was generally believed and printed in all physics books. Between a rock and a hard place that non-existence of aether cannot be rejected, Einstein therefore morphed aether as spacetime continuum, in an interchanged manner the invariant space and time with a variant aether were swapped with invariant aether and a variant spacetime continuum. He categorically mentioned "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". He also categorically mentioned space is his measuring rod (invariant) and time is his measuring clock (invariant). In GR where aether is swapped with absolute space and time, an ambiguity would occur in linguistic manner and when aether is treated as invariant therefore "this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.".

Any relativist who believes that space and time are variants, therefore the phenomena of transformations are real, space and time are distorted physically in gravitational field, length contraction is physical, gravitational time dilation is scientifically proven and time travel is possible, he just needs to investigate the explanation by Einstein on time dilation effect. It is clearly stated that time dilation effect is merely an optical illusion of relative motion; this could be extrapolated to clarify the rest of the GR postulations that are related to time dilation effect. See a UVS topic on "Time dilation".

Kind regards from your vortex buddy,

[vacuum-mechanics]

Hi Allen,

I just noticed that you have started an interesting thread here.

Below are my opinions:

In the classical physics era when aether does not exist was the consensus, Einstein had relentless searched for a singularity theory of the physical universe, against all odds he had discreetly moved in the opposite direction of mainstream science with his spacetime vortex model, published as the general theory of relativity in 1916

Dear Vincent Wee-Foo,

- Would you please give more detail about “Einstein’s space-time vortex model, published as GR in 1916”?

- Have you read Frank Wilczek (a Nobel Prize winner in physics 2004) book - “The Lightness of Being (Mass, Ether, and the Unification of forces)” which talk about Einstein and aether?

Sincerely,
Nimit