[hvar]

Concerning Ether.
If we talk about ether here, then of course we don't talk about the bodily ether of the mechanical theory of undulation, which obeys the law of Newton's mechanics, and whose single points have velocities assigned to them. This theoretical construct has, in my opinion, found its definite end in the special theory of relativity. Instead, we talk about those things considered as physically-real, which, apart from ponderable matter consisting of electrical elementary particles, play a role in the causal nexus of physics. Instead of 'ether', we could as well talk about 'physical qualities of space'. Well, one could be of the opinion that this definition applies to all objects of physics, because according to strict field theory, also the ponderable matter (i.e. the elementary particles that constitute it) can be considered as 'fields' of a special kind, i.e. as special 'states of space'. However, one will have to admit that, in the current state of physics, such an opinion would be premature, because all effort of theoretical physics directed at this goal, has so far been in vain. As things are today, we are factually forced to discriminate between 'matter' and 'ether', but we may hope that later generations will overcome this dualistic picture and replace it with a uniform field theory, as field theory in our day has tried in vain.
It is generally believed that Newton's physics have known no ether, but that only the undulation theory of light has introduced an omnipresent medium which co-influences physical phenomena. But this is not so. Newton's mechanics has its 'ether' in the proposed sense: It is called 'absolute space' there. To recognize this clearly and, in doing so, define the concept of ether more clearly, we must go deeper into the subject.
Let's first look at a branch of physics which manages without ether, namely Euclid's geometry, interpreted as the theory of possible ways to bring practically rigid bodies in contact with each other. (Let's not consider light rays, which may also play a role in the genesis of geometrical conceptions and theorems). The laws of storage of rigid bodies, if we exclude relative motion, temperature and influences of deformation, as they are laid down in an idealized way in Euclid's geometry, only need the concept of the rigid body. Any influences from the environment, which are there independently of the bodies, and are thought of as acting on the bodies and affecting their laws of storage, are unknown to Euclid's geometry. The same is true of the non-Euclidean geometries of constant curvature, if these are interpreted as (imaginable) natural laws of body-storage. It would be different, if we were forced to assume a geometry of variable curvature. This would mean that the laws of possible contact-storages of practically rigid bodies would be different in different cases: Conditioned by influences from the environment. In this case, one would have to state in the sense of our line of thought that such a theory would use an ether-hypothesis. Its ether would be something physically-real, as good as matter. Would the laws of storage be inert to physical factors, auch as accumulation and state of motion of bodies in the vicinity, but given unchangeably, then we would call this ether 'absolute', i.e. independent in its structure from any influences.
As little as Euclid's (physically interpretable) geometry needs an ether, as little do kinematics or [???] in classical mechanics need one. Their laws have a clear physical meaning, if only we accept that the influences of motion on clocks, which are proposed in special relativity, don't exist.
[big cross-out]
Things are different in Galilei's and Newton's dynamics. The law of motion 'mass x acceleleration = force' not only contains a statement about material systems, not even if, as in Newton's astronomical fundamental law, force is expressed by distances, i.e. quantities whose real definition is based on measurements with rigid bodies. This is because the real definition of acceleration can not completely be reduced to observations of rigid bodies and clocks. It can not be reduced to measurable distances between points which constitute the mechanical system. For a proper definition, you also need a frame of reference, i.e. a reference body, of appropriate state of motion. If you choose another frame of reference, then Newton's equations are not valid with respect to that frame of reference.





mislin da cete gore nac vise nego dovoljno koski oko kojih cete se svadat