First Hint Of 'life After Death' In Biggest Ever

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Didn't Einstein prove the idea of luminiferous ether wrong?

"These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

No

 

[LUH 3417]

No

Could you expound on your definitive "no"?

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Could you expound on your definitive "no"?

Yes

You're quoting a paper from 1905. First he denied the either, then he ragequit the discussion:

Every attempt to explain the electromagnetic phenomena in moving CS with the help of the motion of the ether, motion through the ether, or both these motions, proved unsuccessful. Thus arose one of the most dramatic situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative. Looking back over the development of physics we see that the ether, soon after its birth, became the 'enfant terrible' of the family of physical substances. First, the construction of a simple mechanical picture of the ether proved to be impossible and was discarded. This caused, to a great extent, the breakdown of the mechanical point of view. Second, we had to give up hope that through the presence of the ether-sea one CS would be distinguished and lead to the recognition of absolute, and not only relative, motion. This would have been the only way, besides carrying the waves, in which ether could mark and justify its existence. All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e., its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name. We shall say: our space has the physical property of transmitting waves, and so omit the use of a word we have decided to avoid. The omission of a word from our vocabulary is, of course, no remedy. Our troubles are indeed much too profound to be solved in this way!

Then he relented, finally admitting to the ethers existence:

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 media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

but being the jackass he is, he renamed it the either of general relativity, now known as the bending space-time bull that you see in cosmos and all those science shows

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.

Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

even though it was the exact same as the lorentz either he had so raged against

The reasoning that Einstein gave for his adherence to a new kind of ether seemed to indicate that Poincaré inspired Einstein when he revived the notion of the ether. Since Einstein used the name “ether,” and supplied the same reasons that Poincaré had provided in his writings as to why one should adhere to the ether, Einstein thus returned to the 19th century concept of the ether, but stripped of it its most important characteristic: a medium in a state of absolute rest. Einstein thus came extremely close to Poincaré’s ideas after 1915.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF

In summary Einstein is a jackass and a thief, and he didn't disprove anything.

 

[ddjd]

Its not just a coincidence that thousands upon thousands, if not millions, have had the exact same experience of conciousness during a near death experience.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is ignoring a mountain of evidence

 

[haidut]

Didn't Einstein prove the idea of luminiferous ether wrong?

"These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

Peat said that he read those studies "proving" lack of ether and he thinks they were lying. Also, nobody has been able to explain (without running into contradictions) how an electromagnetic wave moves through truly empty space. The Cassimir Effects shows there is no such thing as empty space, so whether you call it "ether" or "subquantum medium" or something else entirely doesn't matter. There is an underlying medium of reality, without which most of what physics talks about becomes meaningless. Einstein had to invent "dark matter" and "dark energy" to make his theory of relativity work. It introduced a flawed mode of thinking in physics that is still dominant today but it is slowly starting to change.
If you want to annoy a university physicist, ask him/her this (which Tesla also asked) - how come the force of a body acting to bend space-time is not counteracted/neutralized by the 3rd Newtonian law of equal and opposing force? Where is the potential energy of a bent space-time stored?

 

[LUH 3417]

Peat said that he read those studies "proving" lack of ether and he thinks they were lying. Also, nobody has been able to explain (without running into contradictions) how an electromagnetic wave moves through truly empty space. The Cassimir Effects shows there is no such thing as empty space, so whether you call it "ether" or "subquantum medium" or something else entirely doesn't matter. There is an underlying medium of reality, without which most of what physics talks about becomes meaningless. Einstein had to invent "dark matter" and "dark energy" to make his theory of relativity work. It introduced a flawed mode of thinking in physics that is still dominant today but it is slowly starting to change.
If you want to annoy a university physicist, ask him/her this (which Tesla also asked) - how come the force of a body acting to bend space-time is not counteracted/neutralized by the 3rd Newtonian law of equal and opposing force? Where is the potential energy of a bent space-time stored?

I asked and their answer was the “momentum conservation principle”.

 

[haidut]

I asked and their answer was the “momentum conservation principle”.

That does not answer my question as it has nothing to do with momentum. A body at complete rest with zero momentum still has a gravitational effect.
Here is an illustration. A bent/compressed spring stores the applied force (needed to compress the spring) in the changed configuration of atoms that it is made of. Some of it is lost to heat but when the spring is released it more or less "returns" the same energy that was expended to compress it in the first place. And also while compressed it is "pushing" back against the compressing force with an equal and opposite force.
Space-time, we are told, is not composed of any particles (or is it?) but is still somehow a medium upon which objects composed of particles can act. Strange idea to have a non-material entity somehow interact with a material one but let's ignore this for a second. Anyways, similar to the spring example, where is the potential energy generated by the force applied by the body with mass upon space-time stored? The conservation of energy principle cannot be violated. So, this energy must be "stored" somewhere if space-time is indeed "bent". Also, space-time must be pushing back on the material object with the same force but in opposite direction.
There are only two ways out of this paradox. Either there is no "bending" of space-time or space-time is non-empty and composed of some kind of material (ether). The former option implies relativity's explanation of gravity is bogus, while the latter implies space-time is not at all immaterial and empty but comprised of some kind of particle(s).
Keep asking the same question. Sooner or later either you will be told to mind your business if you want to stay employed or in school, or the professor will feed you some BS that you will see if clearly wrong.