Aether Displacement Rebuttal
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: CERN is your potential killer. I’ll send my last 100 baxes to that CERN worker, who will destroy the LHC.
Next: Confirm or deny
From: Autymn D. C. on 22 Dec 2009 15:05 On Dec 14, 6:45 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 14, 7:18 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 5:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The answer to this problem is that space is neither continuous nor > > > discrete, but indeterminately either one or the other. It is > > > indeterminate whether it is continuous or discrete. > > > It's codependent, covariant. > > It is indeterminately discrete / continuous. That is why it can return > results as if it were either one or the other - it only depends on the > question you ask of it. No, it's still discrete. > > > How can that be ? Consider 2 lengths A and B. A is existent, B is > > > nonexistent. > > > Let A be eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee > > > Let B be nnnnnnnnnn > > > > If you compose them into a single length, there is no way to know > > > where the nnnnnnnnnn is located. It's position is indeterminate. You > > > It is position is indeterminate? But length is in time, not room. > > Silly Aut. You can partion A and B and combine them any way you like. > There are uncountably infinitely many different ways to do this. They > are all the same thing because B is nonexistent. The reason why it > MAKES SENSE is because we imposing CONSERVATION either as an axiom, or > as a trivial operator. There are not infinite anything. > > > can rearrange things so that the composition of A and B is either > > > continuous or discrete, and because nnnnnnnnnn is nonexistent the > > > distinction between continuity and discreteness becomes trivial. > > > Both are neither continvose. By existent and nonexistent, you mean > > real and virtval. > > [snip blather] > > > -Aut > > No, I mean physically existent, and physically nonexistent. how? > And when did you start spelling continuous as continvose ? months back?
From: glird on 22 Dec 2009 16:45 On Dec 13, 10:22 pm, BURT wrote: > Length contraction would flatten the atom. > Mitch Raemsch As in "Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system Z, moving with a velocity v, all electrons {and atoms} are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axis in the direction of motion." H. A. lorentz glird
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 10:08 On Dec 23, 10:04 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 6:54 pm, "Inertial" wrote:> "glird" wrote > > > As in "Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system Z, moving with a velocity v, all electrons {and atoms} are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axis in the direction of motion." H. A. Lorentz > > >< Yeup .. that's what happens in LET. Atoms get physically squashed depending on their absolute speed (ie speed in the aether). > > In SR there is no flattening of atoms (and there is no absolute > speed); however, relatively moving observers will measure them as > being 'flatter' using their synchronized clocks and rulers. > > > In Einstein's SR there IS a flattening of atoms in the direction of v, > so ther is a contraction of everything made of those atoms, including > rulers. Otherwise the LTE won't work! > > glird In Einstein's SR there IS a flattening of atoms in the direction of v, with respect to the aether, so there is a contraction of everything made of those atoms, including rulers. Otherwise the LTE won't work! I have tried to avoid it up to now, but since the faster an object moves with respect to the aether, the more aether pressure there is exerted on the object, it looks like the contraction is physical.
From: glird on 23 Dec 2009 10:04 On Dec 22, 6:54 pm, "Inertial" wrote: > "glird" wrote > > As in "Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system Z, moving with a velocity v, all electrons {and atoms} are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axis in the direction of motion." H. A. Lorentz > >< Yeup .. that's what happens in LET. Atoms get physically squashed depending on their absolute speed (ie speed in the aether). In SR there is no flattening of atoms (and there is no absolute speed); however, relatively moving observers will measure them as being 'flatter' using their synchronized clocks and rulers. > In Einstein's SR there IS a flattening of atoms in the direction of v, so ther is a contraction of everything made of those atoms, including rulers. Otherwise the LTE won't work! glird
From: Autymn D. C. on 23 Dec 2009 10:10
On Dec 23, 5:58 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 5:35 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 6:31 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >< The composition of A and B yields a different kind of of magnitude. It is not mathematics, and it is not [{ ? }] nonsense either. It is a hybrid. And the very interesting thing is that this composition A and B can be explained or modelled using probability theory. > > > > > > There is a HUGE difference between the "probability" that B has a > > > > value of zero and the fact that "B doesn't exist". Indeed, if B > > > > doesn't exist then the probability that the value of B is zero is > > > > 100%. > > > > Here's the deal. Let A = 75 and let B = 25. Compose A and B into a > > > single magnitude (or length). The "conjectured" length is 100. The > > > "expected" length is 75. And this new conjectured length has the same > > > properties as an existent segment C of length 100 which has a > > > "probability of existing = 3/4". > > > 3/4 how? [snip redudand] > Let me ask you - if you had a length C = 100, and you said that it has > a 3/4 probability of existing, what do you think the expected length > would be ?? Obviously - it is 75. Still 100. Its probability doesn't weih its magnitude. Expectation is a product of magnitude and probability and will trend toward its weiht over many bouts, but can't output its weiht for one bout any more than a household has one-fifth of a kid. -Aut |