[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 20, Issue 2

[Ilja Schmelzer]

The ether has density, velocity and pressure tensor, with well-defined
formulas how they connect to the gravitational field (the metric).

These are the formulas g^00 sqrt{-g} = rho and so on.  So, they have
all non-constant values. Once the density is not constant, it means a
compressible ether.

Then, it follows classical equations for condensed matter theory,
namely continuity and Euler equations.  The theory which is equivalent
to the Einstein equations is classical, thus, no quantum effects like
superfluidity or Bose-Einstein condensates.

In the General Lorentz Ether, there is also a Lagrange formalism for
the ether. This makes the equations a little bit different from the
Einstein equations. They can be recovered in some limit, but in this
limit the Lagrange formalism degenerates, and the conservation laws
(continuity and Euler equations) are no longer Euler-Lagrange
equations.

A Lagrange formalism is seldom used in condensed matter theory,
because for irreversible effects (like diffusion, in particular of
temperature) there is no nice Lagrange formalism.  So, roughly, only
elastic effects are considered.

2018-11-24 4:20 GMT+01:00, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com>:
> Hi Ilja,
>     Yes, I agree, the best approach is using a form of Lorentzian ether
> theory. I did take a quick look at your webpage - lots of math : )  Have
> you considered what you believe ether to be physically? i.e. a
> non-compressible or compressible fluid, or something more akin to a
> Bose-Einstein condensate or superfluid, or the ether of Maxwell, or
> something else? I ask this because you mention ether density and velocity,
> but how ether moves and whether its density varies should be different for
> some of those possibilities, so just curious where your theory stands on
> that.
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 4:52 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> The best way to understand relativity remains the classical Lorentz
>> ether.
>>
>> Moving clocks go slower, and moving bodies, including rulers used to
>> measure distances,
>> are compressed in the direction of motion. That's all.  Space and time
>> are the same as in Newtonian theory.
>>
>> The same can be extended to gravity.  All that changes is that the
>> Lorentz ether is no longer homogeneous, and is no longer at rest, but
>> moves, and has a pressure tensor. Density, velocity and the pressure
>> tensor define the gravitational field.  This leads to additional
>> effects, in particular clocks go also slower where the ether density
>> is higher, and the pressure additionally deforms the rulers.
>>
>> That the Lorentz ether can be easily extended to gravity is not
>> well-known, see http://ilja-schmelzer.de/ether for the details.
>>
>> Within the Lorentz ether, it is easy to see that there do not appear
>> any contradictions. The Newtonian background remains unchanged, and
>> that distorted clocks and rulers define a non-Euclidean geometry is a
>> trivitiality.  Try to measure pi with a usual metallic ruler if the
>> center is hotter than the circumference so that the ruler becomes
>> longer if you measure the diameter.
>>
>> All the conceptual problems with SR and GR follow from the postivistic
>> idea that once we cannot measure something it does not exist.  So,
>> once our clocks and rulers are distorted, absolute space and time do
>> not exist.
>>
>> 2018-11-23 12:00 GMT+01:00, physics-request at tuks.nl <
>> physics-request at tuks.nl>:
>> > The first is Einstein's redefinition of time as "that which a clock
>> > measures" which differs in a dramatic way from the more classical
>> > definition of time as being "the duration between events" or "the
>> duration
>> > of an event".
>>
>> > Further, the idea that the number of ticks on the
>> > clock defines how far you have progressed into the future would also be
>> > wrong according to Einstein, since all the clocks would have different
>> > ticks even though the share the same present at the start and finish.
>> > Why
>> > are these contradictions not fatal to Einstein's theory?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
>