Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 23:36

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb1d3c17-ff77-4e63-8931-2ca0980faaeb(a)g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 11:10 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with
> > > > respect
> > > > to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at
> > > > rest
> > > > then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes
> > > > occurred in nature.
>
> > > > ______________________________________
>
> > > > So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which
> > > > light
> > > > moves at a constant rate?
>
> > > > What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun?
>
> > > The reference frame is the state of the aether the light propagates
> > > through. And this includes the state of the aether which exists in any
> > > and all mediums in which the light propagates.
>
> > > __________________________________
> > > No, you misunderstood my question. If the aether defines a stationary
> > > reference frame, what is it exactly? The Sun and the planets are
> > > presumably
> > > moving through space, what is the Sun's speed relative to the ether?
> > > Is
> > > it
> > > stationary, moving at 1 kms/sec, what is its speed?
>
> > The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The state of
> > the aether defines the rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'. Light
> > propagates at 'c' with respect to the state of the aether.
>
> > ____________________________________
> > Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the ether, huh? So if you are in
> > a
> > vacuum travelling at a velocity v relative to the ether, then the
> > measured
> > velocity of light will be c+v. This is what you believe, right?
>
> What you are failing to understand is if you are in a vacuum traveling
> at a velocity 'v' relative to the aether you don't know you are
> traveling at velocity 'v' with respect to the aether.
>
> __________________________________
> Sure you do. You said light travels at c with respect to the ether, so you
> just measure the speed of light, compare it to c, and the difference is
> the
> speed of the ether (according to you, anyway).
>

How do you measure the speed of light? With synchronized clocks. As
the clocks are walked to A' and B' on the train and as the train move
through the aether the clocks are going to be offset by the aether in
which they are moving. Again, as I stated in one of my original posts,
the Observer on the train is going to conclude the light traveled at
'c' with respect to the train even though the train is moving with
respect to the aether.

______________________________
What is wrong with simply measuring the speed of light where you are (lets
say its c') and then substracting the measured speed of light from the speed
of light in the ether (c) to find your relative velocity v = c - c'



> If you go back
> to one of my original posts on this thread you will notice that for
> the Observer on the train and the atomic clocks on the train, even
> though the train is moving with respect to the aether at rest with
> respect to the embankment the Observer on the train will conclude the
> light traveled at 'c' because the atomic clocks are already offset by
> the fact the train is moving relative to the aether at rest with
> respect to the embankment.
>
> What I am saying is if the Observer on the embankment and the Observer
> on the train both determine, based on the aether's connectedness to
> the matter which is the Earth that the aether is 'at rest' with
> respect to the Earth
>
> __________________________________
> So the ether is at rest relative to the "matter which is the earth". Does
> this apply in outer space as well?

"There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational
potentials" - Albert Einstein

The same holds true for the aether. There can be no space nor part of
space that can be considered to not be under the effects of some
matter, so I am not exactly sure even the most remote aether can be
considered to be 'at rest'. The other question is what is the aether
'at rest' with respect to if there is no neighboring matter?

_________________________
Who said anything about "neighbouring matter" ? And why are you quoting
Einstein if you think he is wrong? And what, exactly is your belief about
the rate at which the earth drags the ether at varying distances from the
earth?


From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 23:46
On Feb 14, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb1d3c17-ff77-4e63-8931-2ca0980faaeb(a)g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 11:10 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with
> > > > > respect
> > > > > to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at
> > > > > rest
> > > > > then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes
> > > > > occurred in nature.
>
> > > > > ______________________________________
>
> > > > > So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which
> > > > > light
> > > > > moves at a constant rate?
>
> > > > > What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun?
>
> > > > The reference frame is the state of the aether the light propagates
> > > > through. And this includes the state of the aether which exists in any
> > > > and all mediums in which the light propagates.
>
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > No, you misunderstood my question. If the aether defines a stationary
> > > > reference frame, what is it exactly? The Sun and the planets are
> > > > presumably
> > > > moving through space, what is the Sun's speed relative to the ether?
> > > > Is
> > > > it
> > > > stationary, moving at 1 kms/sec, what is its speed?
>
> > > The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The state of
> > > the aether defines the rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'. Light
> > > propagates at 'c' with respect to the state of the aether.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the ether, huh? So if you are in
> > > a
> > > vacuum travelling at a velocity v relative to the ether, then the
> > > measured
> > > velocity of light will be c+v. This is what you believe, right?
>
> > What you are failing to understand is if you are in a vacuum traveling
> > at a velocity 'v' relative to the aether you don't know you are
> > traveling at velocity 'v' with respect to the aether.
>
> > __________________________________
> > Sure you do. You said light travels at c with respect to the ether, so you
> > just measure the speed of light, compare it to c, and the difference is
> > the
> > speed of the ether (according to you, anyway).
>
> How do you measure the speed of light? With synchronized clocks. As
> the clocks are walked to A' and B' on the train and as the train move
> through the aether the clocks are going to be offset by the aether in
> which they are moving. Again, as I stated in one of my original posts,
> the Observer on the train is going to conclude the light traveled at
> 'c' with respect to the train even though the train is moving with
> respect to the aether.
>
> ______________________________
> What is wrong with simply measuring the speed of light where you are (lets
> say its c') and then substracting the measured speed of light from the speed
> of light in the ether (c) to find your relative velocity v = c - c'
>

How are you measuring the speed of light? Are you using synchronized
clocks, mirrors? How are you measuring your speed with respect to the
aether?


>
>
> > If you go back
> > to one of my original posts on this thread you will notice that for
> > the Observer on the train and the atomic clocks on the train, even
> > though the train is moving with respect to the aether at rest with
> > respect to the embankment the Observer on the train will conclude the
> > light traveled at 'c' because the atomic clocks are already offset by
> > the fact the train is moving relative to the aether at rest with
> > respect to the embankment.
>
> > What I am saying is if the Observer on the embankment and the Observer
> > on the train both determine, based on the aether's connectedness to
> > the matter which is the Earth that the aether is 'at rest' with
> > respect to the Earth
>
> > __________________________________
> > So the ether is at rest relative to the "matter which is the earth". Does
> > this apply in outer space as well?
>
> "There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational
> potentials" - Albert Einstein
>
> The same holds true for the aether. There can be no space nor part of
> space that can be considered to not be under the effects of some
> matter, so I am not exactly sure even the most remote aether can be
> considered to be 'at rest'. The other question is what is the aether
> 'at rest' with respect to if there is no neighboring matter?
>
> _________________________
> Who said anything about "neighbouring matter" ? And why are you quoting
> Einstein if you think he is wrong? And what, exactly is your belief about
> the rate at which the earth drags the ether at varying distances from the
> earth?

I said Einstein's train gedanken is incorrect. I said Einstein concept
of 'spacetime' is incorrect. I said Einstein is very correct when
describing the aether.

I did not say the earth drags the aether. I have said the aether is at
various degrees of 'at rest' with respect to the Earth.

I understand you are not going to understand this but your suggestion
of the 'rate' at which the Earth drags the aether is once again asking
for a speed of the aether. As I have said at least three times now,
you cannot determine the speed of the aether. In terms of the aether's
speed it is unmeasurable. There is nothing to measure it with. All we
can determine is the state of the aether and the state of the aether
is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the
aether is discussed in terms of the aether's state of rest.
From: BURT on 15 Feb 2010 00:14
On Feb 14, 8:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:10 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with respect
> > > > > to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at rest
> > > > > then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes
> > > > > occurred in nature.
>
> > > > > ______________________________________
>
> > > > > So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which
> > > > > light
> > > > > moves at a constant rate?
>
> > > > > What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun?
>
> > > > The reference frame is the state of the aether the light propagates
> > > > through. And this includes the state of the aether which exists in any
> > > > and all mediums in which the light propagates.
>
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > No, you misunderstood my question. If the aether defines a stationary
> > > > reference frame, what is it exactly? The Sun and the planets are
> > > > presumably
> > > > moving through space, what is the Sun's speed relative to the ether? Is
> > > > it
> > > > stationary, moving at 1 kms/sec, what is its speed?
>
> > > The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The state of
> > > the aether defines the rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'. Light
> > > propagates at 'c' with respect to the state of the aether.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the ether, huh? So if you are in a
> > > vacuum travelling at a velocity v relative to the ether, then the measured
> > > velocity of light will be c+v. This is what you believe, right?
>
> > What you are failing to understand is if you are in a vacuum traveling
> > at a velocity 'v' relative to the aether you don't know you are
> > traveling at velocity 'v' with respect to the aether.
>
> > __________________________________
> > Sure you do. You said light travels at c with respect to the ether, so you
> > just measure the speed of light, compare it to c, and the difference is the
> > speed of the ether (according to you, anyway).
>
> How do you measure the speed of light? With synchronized clocks. As
> the clocks are walked to A' and B' on the train and as the train move
> through the aether the clocks are going to be offset by the aether in
> which they are moving. Again, as I stated in one of my original posts,
> the Observer on the train is going to conclude the light traveled at
> 'c' with respect to the train even though the train is moving with
> respect to the aether.
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you go back
> > to one of my original posts on this thread you will notice that for
> > the Observer on the train and the atomic clocks on the train, even
> > though the train is moving with respect to the aether at rest with
> > respect to the embankment the Observer on the train will conclude the
> > light traveled at 'c' because the atomic clocks are already offset by
> > the fact the train is moving relative to the aether at rest with
> > respect to the embankment.
>
> > What I am saying is if the Observer on the embankment and the Observer
> > on the train both determine, based on the aether's connectedness to
> > the matter which is the Earth that the aether is 'at rest' with
> > respect to the Earth
>
> > __________________________________
> > So the ether is at rest relative to the "matter which is the earth". Does
> > this apply in outer space as well?
>
> "There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational
> potentials" - Albert Einstein

He was wrong. Not all space is gravitational. There is a range to
every force. Gravity has a domain.

Mitch Raemsch


> The same holds true for the aether. There can be no space nor part of
> space that can be considered to not be under the effects of some
> matter, so I am not exactly sure even the most remote aether can be
> considered to be 'at rest'. The other question is what is the aether
> 'at rest' with respect to if there is no neighboring matter?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Peter Webb on 15 Feb 2010 00:18
As I have said at least three times now,
you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
____________________________________

You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So why
can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and
the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
procedure determine the speed of the ether?




From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 00:23
On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>  As I have said at least three times now,
> you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> ____________________________________
>
> You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So why
> can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and
> the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> procedure determine the speed of the ether?

How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?

As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of
the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't
measure your speed relative to the aether.

Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a
fifth time?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights