Anyone have opinions on this gent here?Seems to be his manifolds that Einstein based his theories upon. Really glad someone turned me on to him.Bet HE believed in the Aether...unlike some (((people)))I'm not expecting any great responses but maybe I'll be surprised.
bump
...
>>17042235Aetger is stupid and wrong but you will probably appreciate this:https://21sci-tech.com/articles/Winter_1995/Philosophical_Fragments.pdfRiemann references the Aether in relation to gravity in the section "New Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy."
>>17042235You already have 5 threads of aetherslop.Threadly reminder that defining an "aether" adds nothing to SR and you're basically just specifying an arbitrary reference frame then forgetting about it. It's completely pointless.
Riemann died like 40 years before special relativity. Everyone believed in aether back then.
>>17042429>arbitrary
>>17042524In this context, it means you can choose any frame you want. There's no reason to choose any particular frame for the aether.
>>17042429Kek im the real Lorentzian aether guy. Im not op but happy the aether is back.>CMB is arbitraryIts not and there are good reasons to take it as reference frame. It add simultaneity as equivalence function for example.
>>17042543It defines a reference frame, but that frame has no special relevance to physics. Say I want to fly spaceships around near light speed and understand how my clocks will function. I don't need to know or worry about the frame of the CMB. It's just a pointless thing you've tacked on to the theory of special relativity. It has no purpose except to satisfy your desire for an "aether" to exist.
>>17042235>Bet HE believed in the Aether...unlike some (((people)))Einstein also believed in the Aether>To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.>[B]esides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.>The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.>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.Albert Einstein, in his lecture "Ether and the Theory of Relativity", 5 May 1920, University of Leiden
>>17042553>but that frame has no special relevance to physicsHu? You might want to start rotating a bucket ful of water and you will see.>>17042553>Say I want to fly spaceships around near light speed and understand how my clocks will function. I don't need to know or worry about the frame of the CMB.Oh you absolutely do have to worry. The blueshift of the CMB in the direction of travel will be so extrem, the CMB will melt your spaceship.
>>17042569Yes but that was not honest. He added it would have no relative motion and it was more like modern fields. But that he clearly said no propagation of light would be possible is telling.
>>17042570>Oh you absolutely do have to worry. The blueshift of the CMB in the direction of travel will be so extrem, the CMB will melt your spaceship.Not really, you would get melted by other shit long before the CMB.>Hu? You might want to start rotating a bucket ful of water and you will see.So I can't understand how a bucket of water behaves if I rotate it without taking into account the reference frame of the CMB?
>>17042572>Not really, you would get melted by other shit long before the CMB.In free space? It would be CMB first i think. But first was not the point, the point was that its happening.>>17042572>So I can't understand how a bucket of water behaves if I rotate it without taking into account the reference frame of the CMB?You can refer to the fixed stars like mach. But the CMB has basically zero rotation compared to the fixed stars and is a local thing, how else would the bucket know about the fixed stars hmmm?
>>17042571>>17042429Ya...it's almost like they don't want their to be some form of underlying frame of reference for morality or physics. You know, the establishment I mean. Because if their was one it would topple (((their))) entire perspective and way of life.
>>17042353thank you sir
>>17042800Yes its very clear this is pushed. I think its this "oh all is relative" philosophy they are pushing with it. It kills common sense, thats the thing. "Relative simultaneity", "space bends" all this bullshit.
another aether threadI cant do this anymorewhy can't you retarded morons just study SR and appreciate it for the mathematical elegance that haswhy always insert this obsolete boring BS only to claim another point for the Aryan team or whatever you moronic /pol/tards want from the aetherjust fuck off
>>17042912Mathematical elegance, but in an unrealistic 4d model, should count for exactly zero. Thats the problem with you modern physicists you pretent easy math is a better argument then easy philosophy.
>>17042908It's kinda a strange argument he's making, essentially describing the aether as an incompressible fluid that constantly flows into all atoms at a rate relativte to their mass. I'm not sure if he was arguing for the literal existence of the aether or just useing it as a vehicle to describe the behavior of gravity.
>>17042963That's how aether was perceived in the 19th centuryImportantly, they perceived it as a solid, not a fluid. It needed to support transverse waves, since light was known to be polarizable, and only a solid can do that.
>>17042912Just saying, if you "cant do this anymore" you dont have to read them.
>>17043034In the essay, he's applying fluid dynamics of the aether as an explanation for gravity. I'm not even sure he's talking about the luminiferous aether here.
>>17043107you schizos can put on a trip for your circlejerk then
>>17043115Yeah I don't want that, but just saying he doesn't have to click it if he hates it
>>17043170just take that off topic garbage to /x/ or /his/it has nothing to do with math and science
>>17042960If you do not care about mathematics, then why are you here? Take your philosophy slop to /his/ where it belongs.
>>17043207Are you retarded? This is a strawman. Of course correct math is important, but not elegance.Also its a HUUUUUGE difference to view reality as 4d spacetime or with an aether. Normies would say you are crazy if you claim thats just philosophy, and they are right.>>17043204>physics has nothing to do with science
>>17042912>mathematical eleganceBtw take that philosophical statement to /his/ please
>>17042963>>17043034>>17043111These are good points.There seems to be contention but also similarities between the static "solid crystal" aether and the "fluid or gaseous" one. Maybe it's aspects of both?>fluid dynamics in regard to gravitylike generalized Navier-Stokes equations where the standard Newtonian viscosity is replaced by a non-linear, shear-rate-dependent or viscoelastic constitutive equation?^someone else mentioned that once.
>>17043547Contextually, I always thought the neutrino field acted as an incompressible fluid.Because its like...no matter how many of them you have they're so smol they can't actually compress into anything.^that makes sense to the big brains right?
>>17043471naeggers do not have any math lmaoget lost
>>17043691Lorentzian aether has the equivalent math.
>>17042235Riemann had his own gravitational theory built off aether. So yeah, he did believe in it.Apparently, it is in here. But I dont speak German so someone else is gonna have to decode what its saying.https://archive.org/details/bernardrgesamm00riemrich/page/n517/mode/2up
>>17043922Lorentz transformations were thought up in order to preserve the constancy of c, which implies all of the phenomenology of SR. So you concede?
>>17044091Thats just what i said here >>17043922
>>17043969Its based on the idea that the aether flows into atoms and then disappears. But i fear its 200 years old and therefore cant explain everything thats found since.
I just want to add that the notion of gravity being a curvature in the manifold of spacetime is not a purely Einsteinian one. William Clifford (40 years before Einstein) talking about the subject is the titular example.https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Space-Theory_of_Matter
