Science Forums  # Schmelzer

Members

23

• #### Days Won

1

Schmelzer had the most liked content!

• Rank
Thinking
1. These symbols have a precise and well-defined meaning in my ether theory of gravity,
2. Interpretations are interpretations of some theory. This theory has equations. My ether theory is a theory with well-defined equations. In some limit, $\Xi,\Upsilon\to 0$, the equations become the Einstein equations of GR in harmonic coordinates. Thus, the ether theory becomes an interpretation of the GR equations. Outside this limit, for non-zero constants $\Xi,\Upsilon\neq 0$, it is no longer an interpretation of the GR equation, or of GR, but a different theory. So, once your proposal has different equations (namely that of the Ricci flow), it is a complete
3. Just to clarify: The approach to an ether theory proposed here has nothing to do with the ether theory I propose. That means, the thread is misnamed.
4. In my ether interpretation, there is no stretching of space at all. The space is a classical Euclidean absolute space as used by Newton and Kant. Everything what is dynamical is the ether. So all the components of the gravitational field describe ether properties (density, velocity, stress tensor) instead of properties of some "spacetime". The velocity of the ether is a velocity field, defined everywhere, $v^i(x,t)$. The metric is completely defined by density, velocity, and stress tensor of the ether. Of course, these are functions which vary. And this leads, indeed, to re
5. You combine here terms from different theories and different contexts. The v in my formula is the velocity of the ether, in a GR context. In the SR context, it is zero. The factor $\gamma$ is relevant for clocks moving against the ether, and in this form makes sense only in SR. So, it makes no sense to combine them into a single formula.
6. Essentially, there is no modern understanding of ether theory. There is the classical Lorentz ether, where the metric is only the Minkowski metric. Here the $\eta^{0i}=0$ so that the velocity is zero and the density $\rho=g^{00}\sqrt{-g}$ is constant. And there is the Leyden lecture, which is nothing than a popular lecture, which has been essentially ignored by the mainstream which made "ether" a bad word. All this essentially a century old. There are ether freaks who don't even understand SR, unpublishable for good reasons. There is Jacobson's "Einstein ether" which
7. I don't understand your problems with the simple formula $v^i(x,t) = g^{0i}(x,t)/g^{00}(x,t)$ which holds in the preferred (harmonic) coordinates. In general, it defines a nontrivial velocity. But in particular cases (Minkowski metric, Schwarzschild metric, FLRW ansatz, all in harmonic coordinates) we have $g^{0i}(x,t)=0$ and therefore the ether velocity for these cases will be zero. SR is the limit of GR where we have no nontrivial gravitational field, so that the metric is the Minkowski metric $\eta^{\mu\nu}$. This metric is obviously a case where the
8. From a practical point of view, we have a quite obvious candidate for a preferred system of coordinates - the CMBR frame, or the comoving coordinates together with proper time of clocks at rest after the Big Band as used in the FLRW ansatz. With this assumption, the universe would be homogeneous on the large scale even from an ether point of view. These comoving coordinates are even harmonic, thus, fulfill the equations for the preferred coordinates. So, from a practical point of view we can measure absolute velocity, it is the velocity we name "velocity relative to the CMBR frame". Of
9. Yes. It is the positivist idea that what is unobservable does not exist. The Lorentz ether, as an interpretation of SR, gives zero velocity for the Minkowski metric, which is the only metric considered in this theory. My general formulas also give zero velocity for the Minkowski metric. I don't see a contradiction. It is you who has to explain where you see a contradiction.
10. First, "Lorentz ether" is essentially a name for an interpretation of SR. The details of what Lorentz has tried is quite irrelevant. The formulas for the velocity in my generalization of the Lorentz ether give for the Minkowski metric also a motionless ether, so that there is no contradiction at all. There is, indeed, a difference that the old ether was lumineferous but my ether is universal. I'm not proposing a dead horse, but I'm proposing a new theory compatible with all of modern physics. So, there is nothing in my theory which has been debunked. By some accident, it shares a l
11. No, I do not "simply disagree", but with presenting explicitly, with formulas, an ether interpretation of the GR equations which have the properties Einstein has claimed that they cannot be assigned to the GR ether. Whatever you need, is presented in the paper and on the website. If you think something is not explained in a sufficiently clear way, feel free to object. The instance you mentioned is easy to handle. The "action equals reaction" symmetry is a property of the Lagrange formalism. Essentially it is simply that the order of the variational derivatives does not matter: $\ 12. I know this quote. And here I simply disagree with Einstein. And it is the Lorentz ether interpretation which I propose which proves that this can be done. I apply the idea of motion to the ether. Of course, there are two excuses for Einstein. First of all, and most importantly, he simply did not know about this possibility. The other justification is that he was, at that time, under strong influence of Mach's positivism. He was, of course, aware that Lorentz attributed to the ether a velocity, namely zero. In this quote he rejects this: This is a prescription based on positi 13. Which deduction? What could be the base of your knowledge about the ether? There is no such base. Which stationary ether problem? The ether is stationary in SR, the classical Lorentz ether, and that is not really a problem. Except if you think it is a problem that there are ether sound waves, thus, there should be some velocity of the ether at small distances. That's fine, but solved by the generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity where it has a nontrivial velocity. Classical GR in the spacetime interpretation knows nothing about an ether, thus, cannot address any ether probl 14. The agreement with observation is sufficiently fine, as for GR (with [math]\Lambda CDM$ cosmology) as well as for the SM. About the ether we know nothing. There is the Lorentz ether, which is SR with a preferred frame, and that's all. Everything else is either old ether on the dustbin of history or not even a theory. Except Jacobson's Einstein aether, which is conceptually very different (it has no background) To repeat myself: This is not an issue. First, there is no such difference, second, it would not matter if there would be one. Names are nothing but conventions. If modern textb
15. This would be another theory of gravity. My ether theory gives in the limit quite standard mainstream physics, namely the Einstein equations of GR as well as the fermions and gauge fields of the Standard Model. I would not completely exclude that a more detailed consideration of the interactions between gravity and the matter fields (essentially I have up to now considered only the special-relativistic limit for the SM ether model) will show some non-trivial connections between the electroweak fields (which describe lattice distortions) and gravity. But this will hardly change the number
×