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: Dono. on 11 Mar 2010 22:41
On Mar 11, 1:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> The 'real' speed is not isotropic, because to work out real speed you use
> Galilean transforms between frames (not Lorentz transforms). The hidden
> reality 'behind' what we measure (according to LET) is Galilean/Euclidean,
> not Lorentzian/Minkowski.
>
> In LET, to convert from 'real' speed (or position or time etc) to measured
> speed (etc) in a given frame, you apply Galilean transforms from your frame
> to the aether frame, and then Lorentz transforms back to your frame again.
> That is how it is done. That is what I did.
>


You were always borderline autistic. Based on the above, it is clear
that you are downright insane.

From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 22:54

"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:722fe1d3-ba1d-4439-bffe-eda2ca668f82(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 9:41 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 8:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:1132a230-92d9-484a-b0c1-d3a97532cad9(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > >> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of
>> > > >> >> spacetime
>>
>> > > >> > That's simply a silly idea...
>>
>> > > >> That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR
>>
>> > > > Something physical may be represented by a geometric description.
>>
>> > > And our universe is represented by Minkowski geometry.
>>
>> > Yes, you can descibe localized behavior with that format. BUT! to do
>> > so you must depend on finite light speed and its physical
>> > independence. Geometry neither predicts. explains, or has a basis for
>> > that.
>>
>> That's incorrect, Paul. The geometric structure of spacetime imposes
>> both a finite speed of light AND makes it frame-independent.
>>
>> The geometric structure of spacetime *necessarily* divides pairs of
>> events into three categories: spacelike-separated, timelike-separated,
>> and nullcone-separated. This structure also immediately leads to the
>> result that any wordline that could be traversed by something between
>> timelike-separated events will, in any other inertial reference frame,
>> still be between timelike-separated events. What this means explicitly
>> is that this object can never span two spacelike-separated events.
>> Thus, the universe of events is strictly divided into two completely
>> separated causal domains. The boundary of these domains is the null
>> cone. Since the null cone has a definite slope of space vs time, this
>> imposes a causal speed limit. (This limit does not exist in Euclidean
>> 3D+1D space -- it is a unique feature of the 4D space and its
>> geometry.)
>>
>> Furthermore, while transformations between inertial frames will shift
>> the slopes between pairs of timelike events (that is, the speed of an
>> object traveling between the two events), the same transformation
>> between pairs of events on the null cone do not change slope. What
>> this means is that any object that can travel between two events on
>> null cone will have the same speed regardless of inertial reference
>> frame.
>>
>> So you see, the geometric structure DOES imply both a causal speed
>> limit and the invariance of that causal speed limit with choice of
>> inertial reference frame. It just so happens that light appears to be
>> one of the candidate objects that can travel between nullcone-
>> separated events.
>>
>> If you need to see how the structure does impose those limits
>> formally, I could point you to a reference book or two that derives
>> this unambiguously.
>>
>> At the time that Einstein proposed special relativity, he did not
>> understand how such a geometric structure could produce those two
>> conclusions as necessary consequences. And so he just posited the
>> invariance of the speed of light as a postulate (or equivalently,
>> demanded that Maxwell's equations obey the principle of relativity).
>> It was only later that the geometric structure was uncovered and it
>> was understood how the light postulate follows directly from this
>> structure.
>>
>> PD
>
> I wasn't going to bother with a reply since we have gone round & round
> on this very point. I find your argument without merit and I'm
> certain that you mind is made up. Why act like kid and continuously
> and say no it ain't, yes it is???
>
> In minkowski math c can be any finite value.

Indeed it can. But we observe it to have a particular value in our
universe.

> As Tom Roberts would
> argue the are nearly a infinite number of variations which fit this
> form.

All equivalent as long as c is finite

> Thus it's dependent upon c being a 'physical' constant.

Yes .. it just doesn't really matter that much what particular value it has.
But it does have a particular value in our universe

> And,
> as GR shows, it not even global. Now why might that be??? The logic
> (actually lack thereof) and thought process is 'in my opinion' silly
> and no one, not in print nor herein has provided any argument that is
> convincing that the math and geometry is NOT! a resultant of physical
> processes rather some magical geometry...

The geometry models what we find happens physically. Why you insist there
be some physical cause for why space and time is as modeled by Minkowski
geometry, but do not similarly require a physical cause for why it would be
modeled by Euclidean geometry (especially when experimental evidence points
to it NOT being so modeled) sounds rather hypocritical to me.


From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 22:59

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e99ad0c3-7b14-43e9-bf26-627f6112aac5(a)v34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 1:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> The 'real' speed is not isotropic, because to work out real speed you use
>> Galilean transforms between frames (not Lorentz transforms). The hidden
>> reality 'behind' what we measure (according to LET) is
>> Galilean/Euclidean,
>> not Lorentzian/Minkowski.
>>
>> In LET, to convert from 'real' speed (or position or time etc) to
>> measured
>> speed (etc) in a given frame, you apply Galilean transforms from your
>> frame
>> to the aether frame, and then Lorentz transforms back to your frame
>> again.
>> That is how it is done. That is what I did.
>>
>
>
> You were always borderline autistic. Based on the above, it is clear
> that you are downright insane.

I'm just describing LET to you .. as it is clear you have no idea what it is
about .. first you say it has Galilean transforms giving anistropic light
and Lorentz transforms do not apply, then you claim there are no Galilean
transforms in it at all, so I'm assuming you then now think it has Lorentz
transforms and isotropic light (or maybe some other transform you haven't
mentioned). It seems like you just can't make up your mind WHAT LET says at
all. And you are certainly unwilling to listen and learn from those who do.

Maybe you should just go away for a while and read up on LET before making
an even bigger fool of yourself. Then when you come back and talk about it
again, you can pretend that you never made any of the mistakes you have made
here (as you usually do) and you ego can bloom once more.


From: mpc755 on 11 Mar 2010 23:14
On Mar 11, 9:03 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 5:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 11, 5:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 11, 4:57 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:2e16df28-8aaa-4a83-b215-9dae14eb075f(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups..com...
> > > > > On Mar 11, 7:37 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:860a5e85-6231-4eeb-a3a8-f2b25ced173b(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > On 11 Mar, 01:58, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet..com.au>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >> > except for the fairly
> > > > > > >> > obvious explanation that it is the reference clock which is
> > > > > > >> > undergoing
> > > > > > >> > a "real" slowdown.
>
> > > > > > >> Or, that you have no idea of what SR predicts, and have completely and
> > > > > > >> falsely assumed that observers see clocks jump ahead when turnaround
> > > > > > >> occurs.
>
> > > > > > > I'm merely going off what "experts" here say happens. I didn't say
> > > > > > > there is a "leap ahead". Paul Draper (if I remember correctly) said
> > > > > > > there is a "leap ahead". Now perhaps I misunderstood, but that is what
> > > > > > > was said.
>
> > > > > > Perhaps that was what he said.
>
> > > > > > But now you know.
>
> > > > > > No leap ahead.
>
> > > > >http://scope.joemirando.net/faqs/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_gap.html
>
> > > > > This and the supporting links give some of the context here.
>
> > > > > ____________________________________
> > > > > Including the same sort of diagram as on the wiki page, which answers Ste's
> > > > > question, if he could be bothered to look and read.
>
> > > > In the Twin Paradox the twin less at rest with respect to the aether
> > > > has their clock tick slower than the other twin. Since the state of
> > > > the aether is determined by its connections with the matter the clock
> > > > of the twin on the Earth tick's faster than the clock associated with
> > > > the twin who leaves and returns to the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > If clocks tick slower then there must be a fastest time rate
> > > corresponding to light rate time.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > The fastest rate at which a clock ticks is when it is most at rest
> > with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There is gravity slowing of time to take into acount. There are two
> rates in the universe that can slow.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

The rate at which a clock ticks is based upon the aether pressure in
which it exists which is based on its motion with respect to the
aether and the pressure associated with the aether displaced by
massive objects.

A clock ticks fastest away from massive objects and at rest with
respect to the aether.
From: Paul Stowe on 11 Mar 2010 23:30
On Mar 11, 7:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:722fe1d3-ba1d-4439-bffe-eda2ca668f82(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 9, 9:41 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 8, 8:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > >news:1132a230-92d9-484a-b0c1-d3a97532cad9(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > > >> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of
> >> > > >> >> spacetime
>
> >> > > >> > That's simply a silly idea...
>
> >> > > >> That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR
>
> >> > > > Something physical may be represented by a geometric description..
>
> >> > > And our universe is represented by Minkowski geometry.
>
> >> > Yes, you can descibe localized behavior with that format.  BUT! to do
> >> > so you must depend on finite light speed and its physical
> >> > independence.  Geometry neither predicts. explains, or has a basis for
> >> > that.
>
> >> That's incorrect, Paul. The geometric structure of spacetime imposes
> >> both a finite speed of light AND makes it frame-independent.
>
> >> The geometric structure of spacetime *necessarily* divides pairs of
> >> events into three categories: spacelike-separated, timelike-separated,
> >> and nullcone-separated. This structure also immediately leads to the
> >> result that any wordline that could be traversed by something between
> >> timelike-separated events will, in any other inertial reference frame,
> >> still be between timelike-separated events. What this means explicitly
> >> is that this object can never span two spacelike-separated events.
> >> Thus, the universe of events is strictly divided into two completely
> >> separated causal domains. The boundary of these domains is the null
> >> cone. Since the null cone has a definite slope of space vs time, this
> >> imposes a causal speed limit. (This limit does not exist in Euclidean
> >> 3D+1D space -- it is a unique feature of the 4D space and its
> >> geometry.)
>
> >> Furthermore, while transformations between inertial frames will shift
> >> the slopes between pairs of timelike events (that is, the speed of an
> >> object traveling between the two events), the same transformation
> >> between pairs of events on the null cone do not change slope. What
> >> this means is that any object that can travel between two events on
> >> null cone will have the same speed regardless of inertial reference
> >> frame.
>
> >> So you see, the geometric structure DOES imply both a causal speed
> >> limit and the invariance of that causal speed limit with choice of
> >> inertial reference frame. It just so happens that light appears to be
> >> one of the candidate objects that can travel between nullcone-
> >> separated events.
>
> >> If you need to see how the structure does impose those limits
> >> formally, I could point you to a reference book or two that derives
> >> this unambiguously.
>
> >> At the time that Einstein proposed special relativity, he did not
> >> understand how such a geometric structure could produce those two
> >> conclusions as necessary consequences. And so he just posited the
> >> invariance of the speed of light as a postulate (or equivalently,
> >> demanded that Maxwell's equations obey the principle of relativity).
> >> It was only later that the geometric structure was uncovered and it
> >> was understood how the light postulate follows directly from this
> >> structure.
>
> >> PD
>
> > I wasn't going to bother with a reply since we have gone round & round
> > on this very point.  I find your argument without merit and I'm
> > certain that you mind is made up.  Why act like kid and continuously
> > and say no it ain't, yes it is???
>
> > In minkowski math c can be any finite value.
>
> Indeed it can.  But we observe it to have a particular value in our
> universe.
>
> >  As Tom Roberts would
> > argue the are nearly a infinite number of variations which fit this
> > form.
>
> All equivalent as long as c is finite
>
> >  Thus it's dependent upon c being a 'physical' constant.
>
> Yes .. it just doesn't really matter that much what particular value it has.
> But it does have a particular value in our universe
>
> >  And,
> > as GR shows, it not even global.  Now why might that be???  The logic
> > (actually lack thereof) and thought process is 'in my opinion' silly
> > and no one, not in print nor herein has provided any argument that is
> > convincing that the math and geometry is NOT! a resultant of physical
> > processes rather some magical geometry...
>
> The geometry models what we find happens physically.  

I would say that the the observed geometry is an artifact of the
physical process(es) that produces it...

> Why you insist there
> be some physical cause for why space and time is as modeled by Minkowski
> geometry, but do not similarly require a physical cause for why it would be
> modeled by Euclidean geometry (especially when experimental evidence points
> to it NOT being so modeled) sounds rather hypocritical to me.

I do not insist that there must be physicality to euclidian geometry.
What ever gave you that idea??? Geometry isn't physical, never will
be. Geometric form results FROM something that is physical.
Euclidian just happens to be the simplest form but the is certainly
nothing special or physical about it.

Paul Stowe
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267
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