A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 27 Feb 2010 21:41 On Feb 27, 6:30 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > On Feb 26, 11:06 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Paul Stowe wrote: > >>> LET and SR have the very same collection of equations and > >>> consequences, what's the difference between them? > >> Lorentz invariance. > > > That phase says it all. It's not the Einstein transform or Einstein > > invariance is it? One wonders why :) > > No need to wonder, just study a bit of the history. > > IMHO "Poincar invariance" is a better name for this -- Lorentz first published > the restricted set of transforms, but Poincar first published the complete set > and proved they form a group (invariance necessarily applies to a group, which > is why I call them Lorentz transforms but Poincar invariance). > > The irony, of course, is that the theory with Lorentz's name in its title does > NOT have Lorentz invariance (it has it only for observables, not the fundamental > constituents of the theory). > > Tom Roberts I know Tom, that was the point of the comment. BTW, are unobservables science?
From: mpc755 on 27 Feb 2010 21:56 On Feb 25, 2:21 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4374851f-73ff-4aac-8425-f36bc496fb4a(a)g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 24, 3:48 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes > > > > > you > > > > > think > > > > > it exists at all? > > > > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with > > > > respect to the aether. > > > > > _________________________________ > > > > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether? > > > > The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be > > > determined relative to another reference frame. > > > > ______________________ > > > How? > > > > Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. > > > An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the > > > object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether > > > pressure. > > > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to > > > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the > > > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a > > > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite > > > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 s/day". > > > > ________________________________ > > > GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for > > > GPS > > > satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include > > > a > > > component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it > > > failed. > > > Time is a concept. There is no such thing as spacetime. The rate at > > which atomic clocks tick is based on the aether pressure in which they > > exist. Thinking time actually changes is incorrect. > > > If you dropped a clock with a paddle off of a boat and the deeper it > > was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a > > clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the > > increase in hydrostatic pressure is causing the clock to 'tick' > > slower? > > > > Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a > > > different result from SR if your theory was correct? > > > ______________________________ > > Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is > > different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit > > inside > > a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality. > > If the ladder is less at rest with respect to the aether and the barn > is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder, if it is > traveling at close to 'c' with respect to the aether and length > contraction is physical, will fit in the barn. If the barn is less at > rest with respect to the aether and the ladder is more at rest with > respect to the aether, the ladder, if the barn is traveling at close > to 'c' with respect to the aether and length contraction is physical, > will not fit in the barn. > > Motion is not relative between frames of reference. Motion is with > respect to the aether. > > If the spaceship is moving fast enough, the twin and the atomic clock > on the spaceship, will exist under more aether pressure than the twin > on the Earth. The atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower. It > is unknown if the additional aether pressure on the twin will cause > the twin to age less, or more. The rate at which atomic clocks 'tick' > has nothing to do with time. Even though the atomic clock on the > spaceship 'ticks' slower than a similar clock on the Earth and even > though there is additional aether pressure on the twin in the > spaceship, it is not known if the twin on the spaceship will age less, > and even if the twin on the spaceship ages less, it is not because > time has changed. Time does not change. Time is a concept. > > ____________________________ > So you make no predictions at all that are different to SR. > > What a waste of time. AD describes what physically occurs in nature. An atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. The one property the aether requires is pressure. The aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and exerts pressure towards the matter. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
From: Ste on 27 Feb 2010 21:59 On 27 Feb, 12:53, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f47fb4af-7f73-420b-b61b-73a4ce42b1e5(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 27 Feb, 06:55, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:2268f44a-518e-43b4-a3f8-a610f4e89e89(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 26 Feb, 12:31, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> > wrote: > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> About this gravity thing. I am having a great deal of difficulty > >> >> forming > >> >> a > >> >> mental picture of how it is supposed to work. > > >> > At a fundamental level, I do too. > > >> >> If the planets are separated > >> >> by vacuum, how could one object possibly pull on another object when > >> >> there > >> >> is nothing between them? For that matter, how does one particle manage > >> >> to > >> >> pull on every other particle in the Universe at the same time? Are you > >> >> positing some array of invisible springs, 10^160 of them, connecting > >> >> the > >> >> 10^80 particles in the Universe? > > >> > I think a more credible argument is that there *is* in fact something > >> > in between the objects. > > >> >> Frankly, I find the suggestion that each time I move my finger to type > >> >> these > >> >> invisible gravity springs cause every other particle in the Universe > >> >> to > >> >> move > >> >> ludicrous. Apart from anything else, how is this spooky action at a > >> >> distance > >> >> supposed to work, physically? Springs and levers? What is gravity > >> >> supposed > >> >> to be, physically? > > >> > I don't find it hard to believe that every movement of the finger > >> > could have an effect on every other particle of the universe. In terms > >> > of what gravity is and how it works, that remains to be explained. > > >> Ohhh, so your mental model of the solar system contains "gravity", yet > >> your > >> mental model of the solar system provides no physical explanation of what > >> it > >> "really" is. > > >> Funny, you complained about SR and Minkowski for having components for > >> which > >> you have no physical model. Yet your own theory of the solar system > >> contains > >> concepts such as gravity which have no physical explanation at all within > >> the model. > > > Yes, but I readily concede this, and accept that there needs to be > > work done to find out what gravity actually is. For the time being, I > > have a model that operates at a macro level, where gravity is assumed > > to be a fundamental manifestation of reality. Yet you speak as though > > I've let the cat out of the bag or something. > > So you have no *physical* idea of what gravity really is, but that doesn't > stop you using it in a model. > > Funny, the fact that SR contains things which you have no *physical* > explanation of was a huge problem for SR, but the same problem doesn't worry > you for your own model. How on Earth have you drawn that conclusion? On the contrary, I hold that it *is* a problem that there is no apparent physical explanation for gravity (in terms of what it is, how it is mediated, how it relates to other forces, etc).
From: mpc755 on 27 Feb 2010 22:01 On Feb 27, 9:59 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 27 Feb, 12:53, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:f47fb4af-7f73-420b-b61b-73a4ce42b1e5(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On 27 Feb, 06:55, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > wrote: > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:2268f44a-518e-43b4-a3f8-a610f4e89e89(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On 26 Feb, 12:31, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> About this gravity thing. I am having a great deal of difficulty > > >> >> forming > > >> >> a > > >> >> mental picture of how it is supposed to work. > > > >> > At a fundamental level, I do too. > > > >> >> If the planets are separated > > >> >> by vacuum, how could one object possibly pull on another object when > > >> >> there > > >> >> is nothing between them? For that matter, how does one particle manage > > >> >> to > > >> >> pull on every other particle in the Universe at the same time? Are you > > >> >> positing some array of invisible springs, 10^160 of them, connecting > > >> >> the > > >> >> 10^80 particles in the Universe? > > > >> > I think a more credible argument is that there *is* in fact something > > >> > in between the objects. > > > >> >> Frankly, I find the suggestion that each time I move my finger to type > > >> >> these > > >> >> invisible gravity springs cause every other particle in the Universe > > >> >> to > > >> >> move > > >> >> ludicrous. Apart from anything else, how is this spooky action at a > > >> >> distance > > >> >> supposed to work, physically? Springs and levers? What is gravity > > >> >> supposed > > >> >> to be, physically? > > > >> > I don't find it hard to believe that every movement of the finger > > >> > could have an effect on every other particle of the universe. In terms > > >> > of what gravity is and how it works, that remains to be explained. > > > >> Ohhh, so your mental model of the solar system contains "gravity", yet > > >> your > > >> mental model of the solar system provides no physical explanation of what > > >> it > > >> "really" is. > > > >> Funny, you complained about SR and Minkowski for having components for > > >> which > > >> you have no physical model. Yet your own theory of the solar system > > >> contains > > >> concepts such as gravity which have no physical explanation at all within > > >> the model. > > > > Yes, but I readily concede this, and accept that there needs to be > > > work done to find out what gravity actually is. For the time being, I > > > have a model that operates at a macro level, where gravity is assumed > > > to be a fundamental manifestation of reality. Yet you speak as though > > > I've let the cat out of the bag or something. > > > So you have no *physical* idea of what gravity really is, but that doesn't > > stop you using it in a model. > > > Funny, the fact that SR contains things which you have no *physical* > > explanation of was a huge problem for SR, but the same problem doesn't worry > > you for your own model. > > How on Earth have you drawn that conclusion? On the contrary, I hold > that it *is* a problem that there is no apparent physical explanation > for gravity (in terms of what it is, how it is mediated, how it > relates to other forces, etc). Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and applies pressure towards the matter. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
From: Paul Stowe on 27 Feb 2010 22:06
On Feb 27, 6:59 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 27 Feb, 12:53, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:f47fb4af-7f73-420b-b61b-73a4ce42b1e5(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On 27 Feb, 06:55, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > wrote: > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:2268f44a-518e-43b4-a3f8-a610f4e89e89(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On 26 Feb, 12:31, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> About this gravity thing. I am having a great deal of difficulty > > >> >> forming > > >> >> a > > >> >> mental picture of how it is supposed to work. > > > >> > At a fundamental level, I do too. > > > >> >> If the planets are separated > > >> >> by vacuum, how could one object possibly pull on another object when > > >> >> there > > >> >> is nothing between them? For that matter, how does one particle manage > > >> >> to > > >> >> pull on every other particle in the Universe at the same time? Are you > > >> >> positing some array of invisible springs, 10^160 of them, connecting > > >> >> the > > >> >> 10^80 particles in the Universe? > > > >> > I think a more credible argument is that there *is* in fact something > > >> > in between the objects. > > > >> >> Frankly, I find the suggestion that each time I move my finger to type > > >> >> these > > >> >> invisible gravity springs cause every other particle in the Universe > > >> >> to > > >> >> move > > >> >> ludicrous. Apart from anything else, how is this spooky action at a > > >> >> distance > > >> >> supposed to work, physically? Springs and levers? What is gravity > > >> >> supposed > > >> >> to be, physically? > > > >> > I don't find it hard to believe that every movement of the finger > > >> > could have an effect on every other particle of the universe. In terms > > >> > of what gravity is and how it works, that remains to be explained. > > > >> Ohhh, so your mental model of the solar system contains "gravity", yet > > >> your > > >> mental model of the solar system provides no physical explanation of what > > >> it > > >> "really" is. > > > >> Funny, you complained about SR and Minkowski for having components for > > >> which > > >> you have no physical model. Yet your own theory of the solar system > > >> contains > > >> concepts such as gravity which have no physical explanation at all within > > >> the model. > > > > Yes, but I readily concede this, and accept that there needs to be > > > work done to find out what gravity actually is. For the time being, I > > > have a model that operates at a macro level, where gravity is assumed > > > to be a fundamental manifestation of reality. Yet you speak as though > > > I've let the cat out of the bag or something. > > > So you have no *physical* idea of what gravity really is, but that doesn't > > stop you using it in a model. > > > Funny, the fact that SR contains things which you have no *physical* > > explanation of was a huge problem for SR, but the same problem doesn't worry > > you for your own model. > > How on Earth have you drawn that conclusion? On the contrary, I hold > that it *is* a problem that there is no apparent physical explanation > for gravity (in terms of what it is, how it is mediated, how it > relates to other forces, etc). Sorry but this isn't true. Before I continue however tell me what theories of gravity you're aware of? Paul Stowe |