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 19 Feb 2010 00:36
On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth
> > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this
> > > > > your
> > > > > claim?
>
> > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to
> > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with
> > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my
> > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment.
>
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with
> > > > respect
> > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is
> > > > always
> > > > c
> > > > ?
>
> > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c,
> > > according to you?
>
> > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes.
>
> > ____________________________________
> > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all inertial
> > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You
> > should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
>
> But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why.
>
> ________________________________
> You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent with
> the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.  I assume
> you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are
> there any you disagree with?

My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the
light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in
nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the
aether.

My other fundamental with SR and GR is the concept of spacetime. Time
is a concept. Time does not change based upon momentum or
gravitational potential. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing
to do with time.

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. Whatever energy the object requires to displace the aether
the aether returns to the object as it 'displaces back'. The pressure
associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.

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 ìs/day". The aether pressure
associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure
on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth
"causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day".
Combining the aether pressure associated with the speed at which the
GPS satellite moves in the aether and the aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS
satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the
ground". (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
From: BURT on 19 Feb 2010 00:54
On Feb 18, 9:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth
> > > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > claim?
>
> > > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to
> > > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with
> > > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my
> > > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment.
>
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with
> > > > > respect
> > > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is
> > > > > always
> > > > > c
> > > > > ?
>
> > > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
>
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c,
> > > > according to you?
>
> > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes.
>
> > > ____________________________________
> > > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all inertial
> > > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You
> > > should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
>
> > But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why.
>
> > ________________________________
> > You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent with
> > the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.  I assume
> > you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are
> > there any you disagree with?
>
> My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the
> light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in
> nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the
> aether.
>
> My other fundamental with SR and GR is the concept of spacetime. Time
> is a concept. Time does not change based upon momentum or
> gravitational potential. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing
> to do with time.
>
> 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. Whatever energy the object requires to displace the aether
> the aether returns to the object as it 'displaces back'. The pressure
> associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
>
> 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 ìs/day". The aether pressure
> associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure
> on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth
> "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day".
> Combining the aether pressure associated with the speed at which the
> GPS satellite moves in the aether and the aether pressure associated
> with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS
> satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the
> ground". (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Space is the dimension of which the time grid shares.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Paul Stowe on 19 Feb 2010 01:00
On Feb 18, 7:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > ________________________________
> > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth
> > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this your
> > > claim?
>
> > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to
> > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with
> > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my
> > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment.
>
> > __________________________________
> > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with
> > respect
> > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is always c
> > ?
>
> The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
>
> ________________________________
> So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c,
> according to you?

And it does NOT! mean that the observer's system is 'at rest' in an
aether! It just means that material systems behave in a manner that
makes their speed irrelevant to its measurement. But there are actual
physical properties that cause this, and the 'effect' is the Lorentz
contraction and actual time dilation.

From: Peter Webb on 19 Feb 2010 01:12

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f905eb-2174-433f-b24d-03c80bd81617(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth
> > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this
> > > > > your
> > > > > claim?
>
> > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect
> > > > to
> > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v'
> > > > with
> > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my
> > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment.
>
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with
> > > > respect
> > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is
> > > > always
> > > > c
> > > > ?
>
> > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is
> > > c,
> > > according to you?
>
> > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes.
>
> > ____________________________________
> > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all
> > inertial
> > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You
> > should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
>
> But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why.
>
> ________________________________
> You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent with
> the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I assume
> you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are
> there any you disagree with?

My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the
light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in
nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the
aether.

________________________________
You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c with
respect to the observer.

Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether, unless
all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according to
what you claimed in your previous post.

How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is
travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at rest
compared to the ether?

And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other prediction of
SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR
correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you
disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)?


From: Peter Webb on 19 Feb 2010 01:15

"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b801625e-f74d-47e3-aa99-0f5977e345bd(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 18, 7:59 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > ________________________________
> > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth
> > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this
> > > your
> > > claim?
>
> > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to
> > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with
> > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my
> > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment.
>
> > __________________________________
> > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with
> > respect
> > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is always
> > c
> > ?
>
> The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'.
>
> ________________________________
> So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c,
> according to you?

And it does NOT! mean that the observer's system is 'at rest' in an
aether! It just means that material systems behave in a manner that
makes their speed irrelevant to its measurement. But there are actual
physical properties that cause this, and the 'effect' is the Lorentz
contraction and actual time dilation.

_______________________________
So SR says. But mpc755 has a different theory. I would like to know what his
theory is, before telling him he is wrong (so I can explain where he has
made his mistakes, and point him to suitable experimental data).



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
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