Am 18.03.2021 um 16:23 schrieb Engr. Ravi:
> Einstein's "Äther und Relativitätstheorie", translated into English:
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
>
> Einstein's asserts that general relativity requires an aether!
> """
> Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of 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_{μν}), 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 mechanic
al and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.
> """
>
> But, what a strange aether!
> """
> 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. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.
>
> Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else — with the help of small floats, for instance — we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics — if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

I personally think, that spacetime is actually real.

What we call 'universe' is a certain picture we receive from the past
from our position here and now, because we ourselves are also a part of
the 'show'.

The idea of an ether violates in a way relativity, because an ether
should be absolute and stable, what is not quite compatible to relativity.

But we could allow to call a certain aspect spacetime 'ether', which is
absoutely stable for us, seen from here and now.

This is like a 'cut' or a 'projection' from a higher dimensional space
to our world of observations.

What is not moving in respect to us, that is what we would call
'stable'. Extended into further distances it is, what we call 'universe'.

But this stability is an illusion, since we are moving and therefore
take the ether and the entire universe with us.

This is actually a physical possibility, but would require to allow
different 'time-domains', where time flows only into the local future,
which is not universal.

Therefore time should be regarded as a local measure, while other
regions have times, which run backwards compared to our time.

Also matter in our world is not matter in such other worlds, but
radiation or entirely invisible.

THIS is, what makes this idea a little strange, because it violates
certain fundamental assumptions about the world (like absolute space and
universal time).

It also makes an ether obsolete, because no absolute space also would
not allow an absolute ether.

But we could call spacetime itself 'ether', if we do not think about it
as a substance.

I have written kind of book about this idea 12 years ago, which can be
found here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

TH

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 10:30:34 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.03.2021 um 16:23 schrieb Engr. Ravi:
> > Einstein's "Äther und Relativitätstheorie", translated into English:
> > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity
> >
> > Einstein's asserts that general relativity requires an aether!
> > """
> > Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of 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_{μν}), 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 mechanic
> al and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.
> > """
> >
> > But, what a strange aether!
> > """
> > 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. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.
> >
> > Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else — with the help of small floats, for instance — we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics — if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.
> I personally think, that spacetime is actually real.
>
> What we call 'universe' is a certain picture we receive from the past
> from our position here and now, because we ourselves are also a part of
> the 'show'.
>
> The idea of an ether violates in a way relativity, because an ether
> should be absolute and stable, what is not quite compatible to relativity..
>
> But we could allow to call a certain aspect spacetime 'ether', which is
> absoutely stable for us, seen from here and now.
>
> This is like a 'cut' or a 'projection' from a higher dimensional space
> to our world of observations.
>
> What is not moving in respect to us, that is what we would call
> 'stable'. Extended into further distances it is, what we call 'universe'.
>
> But this stability is an illusion, since we are moving and therefore
> take the ether and the entire universe with us.
>
> This is actually a physical possibility, but would require to allow
> different 'time-domains', where time flows only into the local future,
> which is not universal.
>
> Therefore time should be regarded as a local measure, while other
> regions have times, which run backwards compared to our time.
>
> Also matter in our world is not matter in such other worlds, but
> radiation or entirely invisible.
>
> THIS is, what makes this idea a little strange, because it violates
> certain fundamental assumptions about the world (like absolute space and
> universal time).
>
> It also makes an ether obsolete, because no absolute space also would
> not allow an absolute ether.
>
> But we could call spacetime itself 'ether', if we do not think about it
> as a substance.
>
> I have written kind of book about this idea 12 years ago, which can be
> found here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
>
> TH

Empty space proves immaterial physics...