Thread Rating:
• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 Lorentz Ether Interpretation of the Einstein Equations of GR Ioannis Junior Member Posts: 14 Threads: 0 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 06-05-2016, 03:21 PM IF I am not wrong you claimed that the Aether is actually the material Universe, right? It means that the vacuum is a clear stationary Space-Time in absence of Aether, right? I want you to confirm the above since from there I may show you where the trouble starts to get noticed. Schmelzer Administrator Posts: 215 Threads: 31 Joined: Dec 2015 Reputation: 0 06-05-2016, 07:54 PM (06-05-2016, 03:21 PM)Ioannis Wrote: IF I am not wrong you claimed that the Aether is actually the material Universe, right? It means that the vacuum is a clear stationary Space-Time in absence of Aether, right? No. The usual vacuum of field theory is the absence of matter waves.  But the gravitational field nonetheless exists, and can contain even quite nontrivial gravitational waves.  If one assumes that the gravitational field is in some ground state too, we have simply a Minkowski metric.  That means, the Lorentz ether, with constant density and zero velocity. But the ether is nonetheless present.  The space-time is in my theory a Newtonian space-time, thus, stationary per definition, always. Ioannis Junior Member Posts: 14 Threads: 0 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 06-05-2016, 08:18 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2016, 08:23 PM by Ioannis.) Schmelzer Wrote:No. The usual vacuum of field theory is the absence of matter waves.  But the gravitational field nonetheless exists, and can contain even quite nontrivial gravitational waves.  If one assumes that the gravitational field is in some ground state too, we have simply a Minkowski metric.  That means, the Lorentz ether, with constant density and zero velocity. But the ether is nonetheless present.  The space-time is in my theory a Newtonian space-time, thus, stationary per definition, always. It is a bit confusing. So for once more prior to the creation of the Material Universe, was the Aether present? Whatever the answer might be it will lead to inconsistency or contradiction (or "hole") in regards of justifying the existence of spin for all particles, starting even from the Aether itself. I am not speaking about calculations of spin but for the justification of the spin as an intrinsic property of particles. Based on my understanding so far with knowing nothing about yours maths (I cannot follow them, unfortunately), conceptually your work certainly cannot justify the existence of spin on quantum world. Schmelzer Administrator Posts: 215 Threads: 31 Joined: Dec 2015 Reputation: 0 06-06-2016, 04:23 AM (06-05-2016, 08:18 PM)Ioannis Wrote: It is a bit confusing. So for once more prior to the creation of the Material Universe, was the Aether present?Which creation of the Material Universe? I'm an ether theoretician, not a creationist « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)