Prime Matter?

[human_extinction]

I was just watching Neal Adam’s “Prime Matter” theory, and I’m looking for the science on which it is based. I know there were several theories of an ether, but I’m not sure which of them he is implying he supports, if any…

[DanBlather]

It sounds like utter bullshit. Ether was postilated long ago beciase scientists couldn’t understand how light could propogate in space without there being some sort of “substance”. But existence of an ether would mean that earth was moving through it, and there was no difference in the speed of light based on direction as there is in water or air when sound propogates.

[human_extinction]

Let’s try not to call people with honest and rational theories bullshitters.

The earth doesn’t slow because they propose that the whole phenomenon of gravity works as a basis of positrons and such.

Anyway, I found some leads into research on it in the last few minutes.

[DanBlather]

@human_extinction

Let’s try not to call people with honest and rational theories bullshitters.

I didn’t; I called Neal Adam a bullshitter.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@human_extinction

The earth doesn’t slow because they propose that the whole phenomenon of gravity works as a basis of positrons and such.

Honest or not positrons have nothing to do with earth’s gravity. Positrons are basically electrons* with a positive charge like a proton. Positrons are also known as antielectrons because when they come in contact with normal electrons they cancel charges and self emoliate into photons.
*see Leptons

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

Neal Adams, isn’t that the comic book artist with the expanding Earth theory? If so, then yes, it’s bullshit.

[billfish678]

@DanBlather

It sounds like utter bullshit. Ether was postilated long ago beciase scientists couldn’t understand how light could propogate in space without there being some sort of “substance”. But existence of an ether would mean that earth was moving through it, and there was no difference in the speed of light based on direction as there is in water or air when sound propogates.

Well, I seem to recall that the effects of relativity are such that they would perfectly cancel out any measurements you would get measuring differences in speed of light based on the direction in the ether you were moving.

So, at least on that note, you could never tell whether ether existed or not.

Of course my memory could be totally off here.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@billfish678

Well, I seem to recall that the effects of relativity are such that they would perfectly cancel out any measurements you would get measuring differences in speed of light based on the direction in the ether you were moving.

So, at least on that note, you could never tell whether ether existed or not.

Of course my memory could be totally off here.

Totally off. Totally.

Einstein developed relativity precisely because the existence of an ether would result in measurable differences in the speed of light and his postulate going in was the speed of light was a constant under any circumstances. (People debate whether he was aware of the Michelson-Morley experiments that showed that that was no difference; he was certainly aware of the discussion around the subject and he didn’t need the actual experimental results to work out his equations.)

So you have it exactly backward.

And you can’t find the science on which it is based, because there isn’t any.

Here’s a good place to start to watch him beaten into the ground. Adams himself participates, and if you can read any of the illiterate gibberish he posts there and still think his ideas are worth looking at, then we probably can’t help you.

[billfish678]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Totally off. Totally.

Einstein developed relativity precisely because the existence of an ether would result in measurable differences in the speed of light and his postulate going in was the speed of light was a constant under any circumstances. (People debate whether he was aware of the Michelson-Morley experiments that showed that that was no difference; he was certainly aware of the discussion around the subject and he didn’t need the actual experimental results to work out his equations.)

So you have it exactly backward.

And you can’t find the science on which it is based, because there isn’t any.

.

Well

I remember SOMETHING that somebody somewhat respectable came up with that implied that upstream vs downstream “ether travel” would be affect the measuring device to the point that it would be perfectly self compensating.

This was pre internet days, and I don’t read the enquirer, and I can’t imagine I made something like this up outa thin air.

so, does anybody else recall anything similiar or is my memory totally going?

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@billfish678

Well

I remember SOMETHING that somebody somewhat respectable came up with that implied that upstream vs downstream “ether travel” would be affect the measuring device to the point that it would be perfectly self compensating.

This was pre internet days, and I don’t read the enquirer, and I can’t imagine I made something like this up outa thin air.

so, does anybody else recall anything similiar or is my memory totally going?

You’re probably thinking about some things Einstein himself said, in a talk titled Ether and the Theory of Relativity:

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.

And later, talking about general relativity:

According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ``empty space’’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. 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.