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: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 08:25 On Dec 22, 6:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > news:d2d85f90-31be-46fe-bb3b-b11363d408fb(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > 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 > > 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 Aether Displacement, the faster an object is moving with respect to the aether, the more aether is displaced, the more aether is pushing back, the more pressure there is exerted back towards the object. The more pressure on the matter which is the object, the more pressure there is on the individual nuclei which is the matter which is the object.
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 08:33 On Dec 23, 7:01 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Dec 16, 9:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 11:46 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 16, 9:10 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >< Since we are talking about the substance of space, > > > > > please answer my question: Do you consider "the substance of space" > > > compressible or incompressible? If the former, do you think it is > > > TOTALLY uncompressed when in space, as compared to when it's in > > > "matter"? > > > > glird > > > Yes, I think matter is TOTALLY uncompressed when it is uncompressed. > > > But that is not the main issue here. It may be the main issue for you, > > but I think it loses the bigger picture. > > > Properties should not be added to matter, or uncompressed matter > > (aether), unless absolutely necessary and I do not see a requirement > > for there to be the property of 'density' applied to uncompressed > > matter (aether). > > > I think all that is needed is the property of the aether to not be at > > rest when displaced and the more displaced the aether is from its > > state of rest the more pressure it exerts back towards its 'place of > > rest'. > > There is no substanse in roomhead; stuff is in a field when in > roomhead. The field and body are coincident, so the field (or æther) > is dependent on a elèctròn or other mote; its density is found by > Coulomb's law. The force is found by Coulomb's law.
From: Huang on 23 Dec 2009 08:58 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? > > > So maybe you can explain why the numbers work so nicely. > > "work nicely" means work weakly. A = 75 and A exists B = 25 and B does not exist We compose A and B to get the composition of A and B. Clearly, this composition is different than something which is strictlyy existent, and it is different than something which is strictly nonexistent. It is the composition of something which exists, and something which does not. We are no longer doing mathematics, but if we require that the ratio of A to B is conserved, then we CAN do things with this new quantity which makes sense, and as it turns out such problems have some uncanny commonalities with problems from probability theory. If I try to observe the composition of A and B, clearly I will only be able to observe a magnitude of 75 because that is what exists. The "expected magnitude" of this composition is 75. 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.
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 09:25 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:185be6bd-de6b-4920-87c7-e2ef82465b8e(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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? >> >> > So maybe you can explain why the numbers work so nicely. >> >> "work nicely" means work weakly. > > > > A = 75 and A exists > B = 25 and B does not exist If B has a value, it exists. So that is nonsense > We compose A and B to get the composition of A and B. Funny that. The composition of something that exists (A), with something that does not is just A. > Clearly, this > composition is different than something which is strictlyy existent, Nope > and it is different than something which is strictly nonexistent. Yes .. because it exists > It > is the composition of something which exists, and something which does > not. Which gives you the thing that exists > We are no longer doing mathematics, You are no longer thinking rationally > but if we require that the ratio > of A to B is conserved, then we CAN do things with this new quantity > which makes sense, and as it turns out such problems have some uncanny > commonalities with problems from probability theory. No .. they're just nonsense > If I try to observe the composition of A and B, clearly I will only be > able to observe a magnitude of 75 because that is what exists. The > "expected magnitude" of this composition is 75. Of course it is. Because that is all that is there. There is no B .. it DOES NOT EXIST > 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. Nope. The expected length would be 100, if it exists, and undefined if it does not. It does not have any length other than those two possibilities. Now .. for a large number (n) of these 100-length things that may or may not exist, the expected length would tend toward n*0.75 This is basic probabilities.
From: Paul Stowe on 23 Dec 2009 13:16
On Dec 23, 8:05 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 9:36 pm, PaulStowewrote: > > > On Dec 20, 5:47 pm, glird wrote: > > PS: Notice that in the Maxwellian version given above elemental charge > is not present and is replaced with basic EM field parameters z, u, > and Planck's constant h which accounts for the field couplings > correctly, without need for the g/2 factor. > > glird: Notice that 1 times 1 times 234 = 468/2 without need for ANY > other factors. > > > and your point is??? > > that there is a HUGE difference between mathematically correct > equations and our interpretation of what the equations are saying > about the things their symbols represent. On that I will agree... But for physics mathematically correct equations must also resolve to the proper dimensional units and should not contain fudge factors (like the Magnetic Moment Anomally). If there exists a discrepency between measuremnent and theory (as was the case there) and the measurements is proven to be correct, then nature is telling you something. What! that is, is the interpretation part... > Btw, Paul, thank you for your attitude and your patience with me. If only everyone could behave and show even a monocum of proper social etiquette. Rude & crude seems to be the norm nowadays... Now, I'll admit that I have been goaded into sinking to such a level now & then, sigh. > > >> There does remain a 0.013% variance that still needs accounting for. > > > There also remains a 78.01299% variance between the equations and the > > > physical meaning of the things their symbols represent.> > > no, there does not, if you use the correct values and right dimensional system. > > In the equations F = ma and e = mc^2, a denotes acceleration and c > denotes the speed of light in a vacuum. Define *the meaning* of each > of the things the other symbols denote. Also F = qE and E = qV where q is charge and E is potential and V voltage. Of course, V = E x d so we also have E = F x d. In fact, in the Maxwellian model E has dimensions of velocity (distance divided by time) and charge, dm/dt or the change in mass per change in time. The similarity then should becomes even more apparent. It is my opinion that the quation for all such physical manifestation must ALWAYS resolve to the very same underlying primitive process. Back to your statement F = ma, for example, m = {rho}V but can also be resolved as [(dm/dt)/v]A where v is a velocity and A a cross-sectional area. Thus a force can be generated if there exists a dv/dx. As for why there exists a difference between, E = [1/2m(2pi)^2][Sqrt(h^3 (Sqrt(z/3u) )] and, E = ghe/m8pi Is that in Maxwell's model, quantization of charge did/does not exist. Measurement of its magnitude depends upon the prevailing conditions of the medium's state at the point of the measurement. It is an interesting fact that the anomalous part of the measured magnetic moment (0.001159653...) is, within the error band, the same as our solar system's speed wrt the CMBR. That is to say, (0.001159653)c = ~348 kps This suggest that the direct measure of electron's magnetic moment systematically daily might yield some interesting results. But, then again, maybe not. We won't know until we specifically look. > glird |