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: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:30
On Mar 13, 7:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > AD is the most correct unified theory to date.
>
> My theory can stand the tests of the future. I challenge that yours
> cannot.
>
> Togetherness replaces Unification.
>

If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
time changed or do you replace the batteries?
From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 19:41
On Mar 13, 4:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > AD is the most correct unified theory to date.
>
> > My theory can stand the tests of the future. I challenge that yours
> > cannot.
>
> > Togetherness replaces Unification.
>
> If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
> time changed or do you replace the batteries?

Please. Every clock is not broken that measures its own time slower
flow rate.
You cannot get rid of the two aether rates behind slowing time for
energy.

Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:43
On Mar 13, 7:41 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 4:30 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 7:28 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > AD is the most correct unified theory to date.
>
> > > My theory can stand the tests of the future. I challenge that yours
> > > cannot.
>
> > > Togetherness replaces Unification.
>
> > If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
> > time changed or do you replace the batteries?
>
> Please. Every clock is not broken that measures its own time slower
> flow rate.
> You cannot get rid of the two aether rates behind slowing time for
> energy.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

It is a very simple question you seem to be refusing to answer. If a
battery operated clock begins to tick slower has time changed?

If not, why not and why is this any different to a clock in a GPS
satellite ticking faster than a comparable clock which remains on the
surface of the Earth?

The answer is there is no difference. The battery operated clock is
physically ticking slower because of the physical state of the
battery. The atomic clock in the GPS satellite physically ticks faster
because of the decrease in the aether pressure in which it exists.
From: Paul Stowe on 13 Mar 2010 19:54
On Mar 12, 8:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 9:32 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > >> > 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???
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "find your argument without merit". I'm
> not attempting to make an argument. I'm explaining facts about the
> theory and what implies what in that theory. If you do not understand
> what implies what, and you were hoping that my response would make it
> plainer to you, then perhaps this is what you mean by "without merit".
> Perhaps something is "without merit" if you are not convinced.

Math isn't 'a theory'. Look at the example of physical process of
linear attenuation, half of the element get attenuation in a fixed
distance. Thus, as a result, only half are available to the next
distance of similar length. Thus half of those in turn are
attenuated. It's fundamentally a 'linear process' but RESULTS in an
exponential expression. This is not 'a theory,' but mathematics can
certainly expresses the behavior. If I wanted to deliberately stupid
I could say the 'structure of attenuation is exponential' and that
this is 'confirmed by experiments all the time'. But, it's as
patently silly as saying the structure of spacetime is hyperbolic...

> > In minkowski math c can be any finite value.
>
> Yes, and in Gauss' Law, the constant in the expression between the
> field and the source charge can take any value. That value is
> empirically determined. In that case, it is the constant epsilon-zero.
> In this case, it is c. In the case of Gauss' Law applied to Newtonian
> gravity, the constant is G.

Indeed, but, in physical expressions that constant expresses physical
properties G is not unitless and making it so in Maxwell's expression
results in irrational units that clearly indicate that it is also not
so there.

> >  As Tom Roberts would
> > argue the are nearly a infinite number of variations which fit this
> > form.  Thus it's dependent upon c being a 'physical' constant.
>
> Yes, that is so. As is true for just about every physical law.

Yes indeed. Which should tell you that the expression that just uses
it and, more importantly depends upon it cannot possibly reflect any
primal basis.

> >  And,
> > as GR shows, it not even global.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that. Even in GR, the slope of the local
> lightcone is c always.

Note the term 'local'...

> > 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...
>
> It may well be the result of what you call "physical processes", which
> I take to mean matter banging on matter in the fashion you're used to
> from macroscopic physics. After all, Einstein's postulates were found
> to be explainable in terms of something more fundamental, as I've
> explained. It is entirely possible that there is another, more
> fundamental principle or interaction that accounts for Minkowski
> geometry, which in turn accounts for the 1905 postulates. The only
> problem is, nothing of the sort has been successfully produced yet.
> Since you feel very strongly that this is the only kind of fundamental
> explanation that is worth anything, you are invited to produce one
> that works.

Actually it occurred before 1905...

> You may be interested in investigating spin-foam models of quantum
> gravity, which offer the attractive feature of being "backgroundless".
> That is, they do not presume a pre-existing spacetime. Rather, space
> and time *emerge* from the spin-foam. I have no idea whether you
> consider such models (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/foam/for some
> introductory pointers) to be "physical processes" according to your
> expectations, but they do have a feature I would guess would be
> attractive to you -- that spacetime is a artifact of the explanation,
> not the basis of the explanation. Note that, despite your
> protestations that no one is working on a deeper explanation, loop
> quantum gravity, spin-foams, and spin-networks are very much an active
> and hot area of research.

Ah yes, 'spin-foam', sounds allot like the Helmholtz/Maxwell/Kelvin
vortex lattice structure model. Spin-foam OF WHAT??? However, YES!
the so-called geometry emerges from the aetherial processes and
without it things would be 'backgroundless'. Einstein said the very
same ting in his 1920 Leyden address.

Paul Stowe

From: Sue... on 13 Mar 2010 19:56
On Mar 13, 7:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 11:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 2:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 11:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 13, 2:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 12, 11:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:53 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:19 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > T1:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > -\
> > > > > > > > > > > --\
> > > > > > > > > > > ---\
> > > > > > > > > > > ----\
> > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > T2:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > -----M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > T3:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > ----------M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > > ---------/
> > > > > > > > > > > --------/
> > > > > > > > > > > -------/
> > > > > > > > > > > ------/
> > > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from
> > > > > > > > > > > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across
> > > > > > > > > > > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > If two ships flow through space at near light speed next to each other
> > > > > > > > > > light will be left behind as it has to  travel accross space to the
> > > > > > > > > > next ship. Each will see the other ship slightly behind because light
> > > > > > > > > > gets left behind in space.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. It might be more
> > > > > > > > > informative to discuss the light from lightning strikes on the train
> > > > > > > > > at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. Let's assume the train
> > > > > > > > > is full of flat bed cars and the lightning strikes occur above the
> > > > > > > > > flat bed cars on the train at A' and B'. Let's also assume the
> > > > > > > > > lightning strike occur above A and B on the embankment.
>
> > > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"-
> > > > > > > > > Albert Einstein
>
> > > > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment
> > > > > > > > > than the aether is at rest with respect to the train. The light
> > > > > > > > > travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A and B to where
> > > > > > > > > M' is when the light reaches M'. The light travels from where A' and
> > > > > > > > > B' were with respect to the Earth at the time of the lighting strikes
> > > > > > > > > to M'. Measuring to A' and B' on the train in order to determine how
> > > > > > > > > far the light travels to M' does not accurately reflect how far the
> > > > > > > > > light traveled in nature from the lightning strikes at A' and B' to
> > > > > > > > > M'. A' and B' have moved with respect to the aether between the time
> > > > > > > > > of the lightning strikes and the time the light reaches M'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > Light flows through space pushed by time. Space has its own aether
> > > > > > > > that is the main "push" to matter behind all of physics. The strength
> > > > > > > > of gravity does not require this aether to push. Since space flow push
> > > > > > > > is what God is doing in physics. The rest of the pushes are from
> > > > > > > > space's aether.
>
> > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > 'Time' is not a physical force capable of 'pushing'. Time is a
> > > > > > > concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with
> > > > > > > time. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at
> > > > > > > which a clock ticks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Time is a physical thing otherwise it wouldn't be in physics. Its
> > > > > > order is most important. You cannot exclude the most important mpc.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > I am explaining what physically occurs in nature in order to cause
> > > > > atomic clocks to tick at different rates. An atomic clock ticks based
> > > > > upon the aether pressure in which it exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > You are dismissed for not seeing that time and its slowing are real..
> > > > I suppose you are looking for a hole in the wall?
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time.
> > > Take the twins paradox for example. One twin fires off in a space
> > > ship. The space ship is traveling fast enough that the pressure
> > > associated with the aether is greater on the clock on the space ship
> > > then it is on the clock which remains on the Earth. The clock in the
> > > space ship 'ticks' slower. Let's say after ten years the twin in the
> > > space ship arrives back on the Earth. As far as the twin who remained
> > > on the Earth is concerned ten years have passed and it is March 2020.
> > > As far as the twin on the space ship is concerned nine years have
> > > passed and it is March 2019. Is the twin who left and returned on the
> > > space ship going to insist it is March 2019 and convince all of the
> > > people on the Earth it is March 2019, or is the twin who left and
> > > returned on the space ship going to decide it is March 2020? The twin
> > > who left and returned on the space ship is going to change the date on
> > > their calendar. Time is a concept.
>
> > > If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has
> > > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
> > > batteries because you understand what is physically occurring in
> > > nature to cause your clock to tick slower.
>
> > > The twins will set their clocks to tick at the same rate by
> > > determining the aether pressure in which both clocks will exist. Since
> > > both twins understand it is the associated aether pressure which
> > > physically occurs in nature to cause the atom in the atomic clocks to
> > > oscillate at different rates the twins will set their clocks to tick
> > > accordingly. The twins understand it is the pressure associated with
> > > motion with respect to the aether and the pressure associated with the
> > > aether displaced by massive objects (gravity) which causes the atom to
> > > oscillate at a certain rate. When the twin in the space ship returns
> > > both the clock on the space ship and the clock which remains on the
> > > Earth will state the same time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You cannot divorce time from a clock. There are two rates that come
> > together for matter. This is the smartest concept.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>

============

> I am divorcing time as a dimension. Time is a concept. The rate at
> which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time.

Time is a *concept* to a person hit by a bullet moving
1 metre per second.

A person hit by a bullet moving 300 metres per second doesn't
conceptualise much about time because there are more pressing
concerns.

If the two above mentioned victims only disagreed on the TIME taken
for the bullet to move one metre, can we also conclude
the blood from a bullet wound is only a concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications

Sue...



>
> If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
> time changed?
>
> No, time has not changed. You replace the batteries. You 'know' time
> has not changed because you understand what has occurred physically in
> nature in order to cause the clock to tick slower. The same is true
> for an atomic clock. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is
> dependent upon the aether pressure in which it exists.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281
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