Paul Stowe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:22:38 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Laurent wrote:

But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.


"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."

Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.

Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote


Well put Paul! Thank you.

Einstein certainly advanced our knowledge of the aether.

However, the comparison of aether drag to momentum is not one that I
understand.. momentum as measured in what frame?

Cheers -
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:22:38 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:


Laurent wrote:


But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.

As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?

"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein


There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...

Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,

2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
See:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861717031

That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.


See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
GR) Einstein wrote:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

" ...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 wonld 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. ..."

Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
the "Handbook of Physics" clearly & unambigiously states:

"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."

Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.

Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.

Paul Stowe

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aethe...aip.org+update
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:38:50 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Paul Stowe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:22:38 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:


Laurent wrote:


But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.

As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?

"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein

There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...

Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,

2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
See:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861717031

That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.


See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
GR) Einstein wrote:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

" ...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 wonld 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. ..."

Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
the "Handbook of Physics" clearly & unambigiously states:

"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."

Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.

Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aethe...aip.org+update
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

What a mindless drone!

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:38:50 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:
|
| Paul Stowe wrote:
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:22:38 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:
|
|
| Laurent wrote:
|
|
| But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
| aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
| If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
| an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.
|
| As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
| follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
| are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
| The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
| property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
| act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
| master mathematician to figure that out, right?
|
| "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
| superfluous..." -A. Einstein
|
| There are several things about this response that bring into
| question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
| poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
| GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
| reference TO, or about, GR...
|
| Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
| necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
| frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
| as used IN CONTEXT above means,
|
| 2. inessential: not essential
| as in: superfluous to the discussion
| See:
|
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861717031
|
| That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
| Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
| several times, including the reference cited below.
|
|
| See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
| reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
| By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
| GR) Einstein wrote:
|
| http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
|
| " ...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 wonld 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. ..."
|
| Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
| was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
| the "Handbook of Physics" clearly & unambigiously states:
|
| "The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
| GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
| of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
| reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
| assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
| of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
| defined by the symmetric tensor..."
|
| Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
| ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
| undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.
|
| Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
| documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
| dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.
|
| Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
Relativity
| http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
|
| Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
| injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could
be said
| to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that
sense,
| to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind
of
| "aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
| nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever
since,
| by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence
that
| "gtr is an aether theory".
|
| Luminiferous Ether
| http://www.google.com/search?q=aethe...aip.org+update
| http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
|
| Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
| http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
| No aether
|
| What a mindless drone!
|
| Paul Stowe

Hey Paul, you can just throw this back at the drones; no discussion
required.

Volovik says it fairly well in his book "The Universe in a Helium
Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:iUTWe.335646$_o.221374@attbi_s71...
Laurent wrote:


But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free. If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.

As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free. The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a master mathematician to figure that out, right?


"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein

See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory
of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.

The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory
have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters.




Ludwik Kostro, (Apeiron, Montreal, 2000*)

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm


Einstein denied the existence of the ether for only 11 years - from 1905 to
1916. Thereafter, he recognized that his attitude was too radical and even
regretted that his works published before 1916 had so definitely and
absolutely rejected the existence of the ether."

The author proves this assertion directly referring to the opinions which
Einstein himself expressed during his life, in a book which is therefore
full of quotations and precise bibliographical references (up to the point
of quoting even the original Deutsch passages in a special appendix). Here
they are some examples of Einstein's thoughts:

"It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier
publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity,
instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that
with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed
as a carrier of physical qualities."


Moreover:

" [...] in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak
about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we
will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to
assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states.

[...] once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties,
i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity [...] ".


And again:

"This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development if
science [...] Its story, by no means finished, is continued by relativity
theory."

It seems interesting to quote even the following passages by Einstein, where
he somehow admits the rational necessity of the ether, that is to say, the
necessity of conceiving a space which cannot be thought of but endowed with
physical properties:

"There is an important argument in favour of the hypothesis of the ether. To
deny the existence of the ether means, in the last analysis, denying all
physical properties to empty space."

"The ether hypothesis was bound always to play a part even if it is mostly a
latent one at first in the thinking of physicists."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Einstein's non-material aether of 1920 even comforms to topological
quantum field theory.

" 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 ondulatory 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. "

" 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

--
Laurent

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


From - ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY by A.Einstein (1920)


" But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour
of the ether hypothesis. 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. --- *For the mechanical behaviour
of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on
relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its
state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not
appertaining to the system in itself.* --- In order to be able to look upon
the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton
objectivises space. --- * Since he classes his absolute space together with
real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also
something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space
"Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides 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.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which
is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean
acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in
place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial
resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes
action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he
may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows
Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.
But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of
thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by
Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of
inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.


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.


(Which means that all points in space are interconnected) -- Laurent


This spacetime 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[greek subscript mu, nu]), 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.*


What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity
as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, --- *that the state of
the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and
the state of the ether in neighbouring places,* --- which are amenable to
law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the
Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by
nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general
theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if
we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the
former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also
say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the
outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation. "


[...]


" ...when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into
harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of
theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the
theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from ether its mechanical,
and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in
the interior of material bodies, the ether, and not matter viewed
atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According
to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying
out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the
carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all
electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.


As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said of it,
in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical
property of which it has not been deprived by H, A. Lorentz. It may be added
that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether
its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. " ---- Albert Einstein


----------------------------------------------------


Sir Edmund T. Whittaker in the preface to his scholarly and scientific "A
history of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" published in 1951 said:


"As everyone knows, the aether played a great part in the physics of the
nineteenth century; but in the first decade of the twentieth, chiefly as
result of the failure of attempts to observe the earth's motion relative to
the aether, and the acceptance of the principle that such attempts must
always fail, the word "aether" fell out of favour, and it became customary
to refer to the interplanetary spaces as "vacuous"; the vacuum being
conceived as mere emptiness, having no properties except that of propagating
electromagnetic waves. But with the development of quantum electrodynamics,
the vacuum has come to be regarded as the seat of the "zero-point"
oscillations of the electromagnetic field, of the "zero-point" fluctuations
of electric charge and current, and of a "polarisation" corresponding to a
dielectric constant different from unity. It seems absurd to retain the name
"vacuum" for an entity so rich in physical properties, and the historical
word "aether" may fitly be retained." ----- Sir Edmund T. Whittaker


-----------------------------------


In 1954 P.A.M. Dirac, a Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933, said -


"The aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its
capabilities and we see in the aether a new hope for the future." --- P.
Dirac


-----------------------------------


The science popularizer Zukav writes -


"Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g. particles are
excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the vacuum
state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high symmetry that
we cannot assign a velocity to it experimentally." ---- G. Zukav


-----------------------------------


The very well known Tao of Physics by Capra states -


"This [quantum field] is indeed an entirely new concept which has been
extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions, each
type of particle corresponding to a different field. In these 'quantum field
theories', the classical contrast between the solid particles and the space
surrounding them is completely overcome. The quantum field is seen as the
fundamental physical entity; a continuous medium which is present everywhere
in space. Particles are merely local condensations of the field;
concentrations of energy which come and go, thereby losing their individual
character and dissolving into the underlying field. In the words of Albert
Einstein:


" We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of
space in which the field is extremely intense ... There is no place in this
new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only
reality. " (page 210)


--------------------------------------------------------


And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions; ...and he asked them of what
they thought the cosmos was composed; but they replied:


"Of elements."


"Are there then four" he asked.


"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."


"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius, "alongside of water and air
and earth and fire?"


"There is the ether", replied the other, "which we must regard as the stuff
of which gods are made; for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so
do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."


Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas
answered:


"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."


"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"


"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it
engenders all living things."


- The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus, 220AD.


--------------------------------------------------------------


"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of
quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of
aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of
present-day knowledge, one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by
relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
.. . .


We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
mechanics and conformable to relativity, provided we are willing to consider
a perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in practice. From the
experimental point of view there does not seem to be any objection to this.
We must make some profound alterations to the theoretical idea of the
vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather
forced to have an aether."

---- P. A. M. Dirac,
"Is There an Aether?"
Nature 168 (1951): 906-7.


----------------------------------------------------------


"...that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action
and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused
by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this
agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my
readers." --- Isaac Newton

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:KwYWe.335715$x96.117200@attbi_s72...
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:22:38 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:


Laurent wrote:


But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.

As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?

"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein


There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...

Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,

2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
See:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861717031

That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.


See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
GR) Einstein wrote:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

" ...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 wonld 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. ..."

Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
the "Handbook of Physics" clearly & unambigiously states:

"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."

Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.

Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.

Paul Stowe

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aethe...aip.org+update
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether


[This are excerpts from a John Baez essay "Higher-dimensional algebra and
Planck scale physics", published in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at
the Planck Scale"]

***" ...in topological quantum field theory we cannot measure time in
seconds, because there is no background metric available to let us count the
passage of time! We can only keep track of topological change. "***

" The topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric."

" Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical
physicists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be
perfectly obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge
if we are to understand background-free quantum field theories. In physics
that ignores general relativity, we treat space as a background on which the
process of change occurs. But these are idealizations which we must overcome
in a background-free theory. In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state'
are two aspects of a unified whole, and likewise for the concepts of
'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for mathematical
physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply.
" -------- John Baez

--
Laurent

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:KwYWe.335715$x96.117200@attbi_s72...
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:22:38 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:


Laurent wrote:


But Einstein himslef says GR can only be correct if there is an
aether, at the same time he says the universe is background free.
If you find that confusing is because you are still thinking of
an aether that is a material, particulated, medium.

As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?

"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein


There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...

Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,

2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
See:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861717031

That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.


See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
GR) Einstein wrote:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

" ...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 wonld 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. ..."

Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
the "Handbook of Physics" clearly & unambigiously states:

"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."

Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.

Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.

Paul Stowe

Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

Luminiferous Ether
http://www.google.com/search?q=aethe...aip.org+update
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether


"He clearly did not mean the kind of "aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since, by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is an aether theory".

Clearly!

--
Laurent

Einstein's QUOTE:
"Not made by parts that follow a timeline..." does NOT say,
"NOT made up of MOLAR PARTiCLEs, at all..", at all ..duh.!!

AMBiENT MEDiA are COMPOSED of MOLAR PARTiCLES (mol part).!!

Boltzmann's constant k - jOULE / (mol part) / degKelvin.!!
The (mol part) here is a MOLAR PARTiCLE of AMBiENT MEDiA.!!
MOLAR PARTiCLEs are *NOT* included in GENERAL RELATiViTY.!!

Boltzmann's constant k - jOULE / (mol part)*K
- kg*meter / Amp*second
- jOULE*sec / Amp*meter.

The GUESS STANDARD AMBiENT = Uo*Eo*(mol part)
= Uo*Eo*MOL / Na
= 1*(mol part) / c^2
- (mol part)*(sec)^2 / m^2
- electromagnetic CHARGE / K
- Amp*sec / K.

These units SEEM odd first ..but you'll c.!!

Thank you sincerely,
```Brian


Laurent wrote:
As Einstein himself said: The aether is not made by parts that
follow a timeline... If there are no parts, --

insert ..see top.

-- that means there
are no landmarks, which automatically makes it background free.
The aether is physical but non-material, therefore lacks the
property of motion even though, because it's physical, it can
act on matter and make it move. Simple logic, no need to be a
master mathematician to figure that out, right?

"The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be
superfluous..." -A. Einstein

There are several things about this response that bring into
question the cognitive reasoning ability of of the responding
poster. First & formost, Laurent was talking SPECIFICALLY about
GR, not SR and this useless & mindless response is not even a
reference TO, or about, GR...

Second, 'in context' the quote above simply said it is not
necessary to introduce or require any special basis (rest
frame) for the proposed evaluation. The word superfluous
as used IN CONTEXT above means,

2. inessential: not essential
as in: superfluous to the discussion
See:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861717031

That do not, and cannot be logically equated to does not exist.
Einstein, after writing the above also acknowledges this fact,
several times, including the reference cited below.

See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The historical fact is, as Laurent has pointed out, Einstein
reconsidered the necessity for an underlying physical medium.
By 1920 (five years after publication of his final format of
GR) Einstein wrote:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

" ...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 wonld 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. ..."

Einstein by this time fully realized that the equation of GR
was an expression describing a hydrodynamic process. As
the "Handbook of Physics" clearly & unambigiously states:

"The theory used to describe THE PERFECT FLUID IN THE
GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a direct extension
of that of classical hydrodynamics and its
reformulation in the special theory. The fluid is
assumed to be characterized by the physical properties
of pressure and mass density. The energy density is
defined by the symmetric tensor..."

Given that form follows from function, it would have been the
ultimate irrational behavior to then deny what this rather
undeniable fact point out. Einstein was not, irrational.

Thus as can be seen for the facts evident in the independent
documents contrary to Sam irrational and superfluous rote
dronings, Einstein did, in fact, do just as Laurent says.

Paul Stowe

Laurent ha scritto:

"beda pietanza" wrote in message oups.com...
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other constants to continue to be proportianally
the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to keep up... to a point,
once you go over the speed limit and fields can't keep up, matter
disintegrates.


To measure aether drag all you need to do is measure the momentum of a
moving object.

--
Laurent

See if you can help me:
( you may read my other posts on the subject).

I have proposed that there is a speed limit to macroscopic bodies,
faster than which the body would melt in to plasma.

The reason, IMO, is on the weakening of the interatomic bounding
forces while the interaction with the ether gets stronger.

What are these speed limits for bodies ????, what for particles????

Thanks in any cases.

Regards

Beda pietanza


As you know, the faster we move, the slower existence becomes, this is more noticeable when near the speed of light [c]. Clocks slow down and measuring sticks shrink. For a space traveler going across the universe to the farthest galaxies the trip would feel as long as the blink of an eye, almost intantaneous - I say 'almost' because reaching [c] is physically impossible - You can't reach the speed limit because as you reach [c], mass and energy tend towards infinity, making it a physical impossibility. Also, when you reach [c], time is supposed to stop, making it impossible to have any process, and a particle devoid of any internal process or time can't exist.

Gold is massive because it contains a lot of matter, therefore making it more susceptible (heavier) to drag caused by flowing space, not because it's being accelerated, but because, as you say, the weakening of the interatomic binding forces as interaction with the ether gets stronger. Mass augments as objects accelerate because their internal fields need to move faster, increasing information processing intensity, slowing down time and shrinking the space between components as a necessity or a requirement, however you want to call it, not because of caused of friction caused by particles as space flows down to earth, as many contend.

--
Laurent

---------------------------------------

Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory

Proc. 5th International Conference " Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory" (London, 1996), Supplementary

Papers Volume (M.C. Duffy, ed.), British Soc. Philos. Sci./ University of Sunderland, 1998, pp. 1-27. Part 1

By Mayeul Arminjon
Laboratoire "Sols, Solides, Structures", Institut de Mécanique de Grenoble
B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France


1. Introduction and summary

The concept of an ether means primarily that empty space does not really exist. We may believe this, for instance, because electromagnetic waves, that go accross intergalactical space, ought to wave in some medium. We may also believe this, because quantum phenomena, such as the Casimir effect, suggest that "vacuum" actually has physical properties. It has been established by Builder [10-11], Jánossy [20- 21], Prokhovnik [33-34], and others, that the concept of the ether as an inertial frame which should be the carrier of the electromagnetic waves (the Lorentz-Poincaré ether), is fully compatible with Special Relativity (SR). In connection with this, Zhang [41] has recently reestablished, against contrary statements, that the one-way velocity of light cannot be consistently measured - in the absence of any faster information carrier. As emphasized by Duffy [17], the Builder-Prokhovnik reconstruction of standard SR from the Lorentz-Poincaré ether concept may be criticized on the ground that this construction makes undetectable the absolute reference frame and its velocity, which are the physical entities with which the construction starts. It would not be an appropriate answer to recall that, after all, this is the way in which Lorentz, Larmor and Poincaré themselves derived the major part of SR: indeed, this methodological oddness - which is not a logical fault, however - contributed to bring discredit on the ether concept for a long time. Another possible answer would be to insist that, beyond physical concepts, one may still introduce metaphysical ones.

http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------

Vacuum Energy by Mark D. Roberts,
117 Queen's Road, Wimbledon, London SW19 8NS,
http://cosmology.mth.uct.ac.za/~roberts
August 22, 2005


Abstract

There appears to be three, perhaps related, ways of approaching the nature of vacuum energy. The first is to say that it is just the lowest energy state of a given, usually quantum, system. The second is to equate vacuum energy with the Casimir energy. The third is to note that an energy difference from a complete vacuum might have some long range effect, typically this energy difference is interpreted as the cosmological constant. All three approaches are reviewed, with an emphasis on recent work. It is hoped that this review is comprehensive in scope. There is a discussion on whether there is a relation between vacuum energy and inertia. The solution suggested here to the nature of the vacuum is that Casimir energy can produce short range effects because of boundary conditions, but that at long range there is no overall effect of vacuum energy, unless one considers lagrangians of higher order than Einstein's as vacuum induced. No original calculations are presented in support of this position.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0012/0012062.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------

General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic Dynamics

Author: Tom Martin
Comments: 26 pages
Report-no: GRI-000607
Subj-class: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology; Classical Physics


Abstract

Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029

-----------------------------------------------------------

THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER
M. C. DUFFY, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, University of Sunderland, Chester Road, Sunderland, Great Britain, SR1 3SD, Tel: 0191 515 2856; FAX: 0191 515 2703

The first part of this review of the ether concept in present-day physics began with stressing the fundamental role of the relativistic world-ether, as found in the later papers of Einstein. This ether, is best thought of as a unique fundamental continuum of events, into which space, time, matter, and fields - as separate entities - are fused. An account of the historical development of this concept is given in the papers of Dr. Kostro, especially those which summarise his researches into the archives of Einstein's later, and often unpublished notes. The history of the ether is a very complex one - more so that the well-known history of Whittaker suggests - and during any period, there have been several concepts, rivalling each other for acceptance. However, one can generalise and say that before the period 1916-1920, matter was regarded as separate from and prior to space, ether and fields. The ether was usually thought of as a medium filling a separate space, and matter (ponderable and particulate), moved through ether and space rather like an airship through the atmosphere. With the acceptance of general relativity, and the geometrised formulations of it, physical space becomes to be regarded as prior to matter. As Dr Kostro has quoted, in 1930 Einstein was to write that "in the new theory (General Relativity), the metrical facts cannot be separated from the 'properly' physical ones, therefore the notion of 'space' and the notion of 'ether' fuse together." At this time, Einstein regarded space (or ether) as the total field from which elementary particles were created. The "creation" of elementary particles from the physical vacuum is a feature of the theories reviewed below. This notion of Einstein was forshadowed by earlier theories in which matter was a configuration in a universe-filling ether, usually defined as a perfect fluid with particles represented by sources and sinks: the theories of Riemann, Pearson ("Ether Squirts" - a remarkable paper) and Maclaren are examples. The rise of electron theory in the 1890s, and the development of a comprehensive electromagnetic worldview, in the period 19001920, encouraged physicists to interpret particulate, ponderable matter in terms of something more fundamental. The failure to develop adequate ether analogues of matter in the period when relativity became established, together with the failure to detect the ether associated with the Lorentz theory of electrons, and the success of the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, favoured the interpretation of matter in terms of geometry. This was not the first time this had been done, Clifford in the 1870s had suggested a topological theory of space-time, but the Einstein-Minkowski exposition of Relativity resulted in a widespread belief that the ether concept was incompatible with relativity, and the term fell into disfavour between about 1920 and the 1960s, though a minority of physicists - some of them eminent, like Ives, or Dirac - continued to use it. In recent years, a better understanding of the history of this concept, plus the study of the physical vacuum, the zero point field, and a revived interest in the Poincare-Lorentz exposition of relativity and its use in cosmology, and quantum mechanics, has brought the ether back into fundamental physics, sometimes under another name. It would be most unfortunate, however, if too much stress on the Poincare-Lorentz exposition perpetuated the very misconception which the present-day ether theorist wishes to remove. The ether concept is not incompatible with General Relativity and the geometrised approach to any department of physics. The Poincare-Lorentz programme is seen, today, as a physical interpretation in terms of rods and clocks, and sometimes using analogues of the physical vacuum, of a formal structure which can be given a geometrised expression following Einstein, blinkowski, Freundlich, Weyl, and more recent geometers. In fact, starting with the relativistic world ether of Einstein is probably the best way of introducing any review of the ether in present day physics.

[...]


http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webe...ce/quantum.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: "I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena."

http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html

------------------------------------------------------

Flowing Space by Henry H. Lindner


Abstract

A simple theory of Cosmic space and motion explains the experimental results, unifies our understanding of the effects of motion and of gravity, produces no paradoxes, and makes more predictions than Relativity.

http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/W...ce/Physics.htm

Well, that is just too much for me, I will spent some time to digest
your writings.

If the ether is prior to matter, or coexistent with matter, or a
emanation of matter I don't know, surely though, the ether plays the
part of fixing the local speed of light.

Since SR works even at turtle speed (fixing a adequately low signal
speed, and fixing manually the shortening of rulers and the dilated
time rate of clocks).

Since GR is reproducible substituting the curvature of space-time with
the trivial attractive gravity force in a 3D space.

SR and GR are just geometrical model, nothing physical.

All comes back to straight common sense and I am happy.

Thank you again for your great help,

May I repeat my original question??: what is the maximum reachable
speed for macroscopic bodies conserving their structures, what speed we
reached in labs ? And what are the
maximum speed of celestial macroscopic bodies we have yet detected??

Best regards

Beda pietanza