How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: Paul Stowe on 11 May 2010 00:24 On May 10, 8:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b73c1b0b-5f5d-4b66-b8b6-0bf2a4fb3abe(a)t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 10, 7:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:cbde034a-ab2f-483c-bfe8-7ad8d44f435a(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > Your denial of basic aether characteristics is irrational, thus it > >> > really is, your problem not mine Tom. > > >> What are the basic aether characteristics > > >> How do we observe and measure them? > > >> What are the properties of the aether .. mass? charge? density? > >> viscosity? > > > In the classical model of aether which includes the efforts of Kelvin, > > Helmholtz, Maxwell, Lorentz, Ohms, Gauss, Green, and many, many others > > Name dropping doesn't help Doesn't hurt when most of the foundations were developed by them FROM! the aether premise... > > the basic properties of the aether medium are, in SI system of > > measure, > > > 1. a vortex momentum quantum (P) 5.15173E-27 kg-m/sec > > 2. a vortex distance quantum (L) 6.43092E-08 m > > 3. a wave propagation velocity (c) 2.99792E+08 m/sec > > So basically, because (for example) that we know that light travels at c, > then you ascribe the propagation velocity of aether to be that, an then > claim that that is evidence that the aether exists? Nope, not just that light propagates at c... Ah, if only it was so,... sterile. Maxwell went to great lengths to quantify the connection between the light, electric & magnetic effects. > > From these primitives all constant of nature can be derived including > > density, modulus, charge, action, ... etc. > > So .. what are they? Well, charge, 2P/L, Action 2PL, Boltzmann's constant, L^2/c for starters... And yes, in Maxwell's original model charge resolves to kg/sec... Since c^2 = k/z where k is modulus and z is density... That and Coulomb's law gives you the answer. > How do we know the aether exists? That light propagates is not a reason, as > theories preit light propagation without an aether. Because it has all of the common and unique signature characteristics of a medium, modulus, density, the characteristic wave speed relationship TO these, a characteristic Action term, etc... > How can we detect it? Define 'detect'. All the way back to Michelson no-one questioned detecting the aether or its existence, they just wanted to detect our motion wrt its rest frame. They felt that this would be the icing on the cake so-to-speak. It was only after this time that most have rather conveniently redefined everything to try to remove the then existing connections back to how they were originally defined. > How is it any different to the empty spacetime of SR/GR? I guess Einstein said this best when he stated unambiguously "space without aether is unthinkable"... > If its not any different, then how can we say it exists? To remove it you must declare that those element that are properties of the aether simply exist by fiat' Paul Stowe
From: Inertial on 11 May 2010 01:16 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:21a0db22-4b18-462b-9d9e-4d639dc7d190(a)e34g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On May 10, 8:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:b73c1b0b-5f5d-4b66-b8b6-0bf2a4fb3abe(a)t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On May 10, 7:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:cbde034a-ab2f-483c-bfe8-7ad8d44f435a(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > Your denial of basic aether characteristics is irrational, thus it >> >> > really is, your problem not mine Tom. >> >> >> What are the basic aether characteristics >> >> >> How do we observe and measure them? >> >> >> What are the properties of the aether .. mass? charge? density? >> >> viscosity? >> >> > In the classical model of aether which includes the efforts of Kelvin, >> > Helmholtz, Maxwell, Lorentz, Ohms, Gauss, Green, and many, many others >> >> Name dropping doesn't help > > Doesn't hurt when most of the foundations were developed by them FROM! > the aether premise... > >> > the basic properties of the aether medium are, in SI system of >> > measure, >> >> > 1. a vortex momentum quantum (P) 5.15173E-27 kg-m/sec >> > 2. a vortex distance quantum (L) 6.43092E-08 m >> > 3. a wave propagation velocity (c) 2.99792E+08 m/sec >> >> So basically, because (for example) that we know that light travels at c, >> then you ascribe the propagation velocity of aether to be that, an then >> claim that that is evidence that the aether exists? > > Nope, not just that light propagates at c... Ah, if only it was > so,... sterile. Maxwell went to great lengths to quantify the > connection between the light, electric & magnetic effects. None of which means there is an aether >> > From these primitives all constant of nature can be derived including >> > density, modulus, charge, action, ... etc. >> >> So .. what are they? > > Well, charge, 2P/L, Action 2PL, Boltzmann's constant, L^2/c for > starters... And yes, in Maxwell's original model charge resolves to > kg/sec... Since c^2 = k/z where k is modulus and z is density... > That and Coulomb's law gives you the answer. > >> How do we know the aether exists? That light propagates is not a reason, >> as >> theories preit light propagation without an aether. > > Because it has all of the common and unique signature characteristics > of a medium, modulus, density, the characteristic wave speed > relationship TO these, a characteristic Action term, etc... NO .. it doesn't .. you are just assuming something with those properties exists. Its not that you have something the you can detect an the observe it has the required properties. >> How can we detect it? > > Define 'detect'. You've got to be joking > All the way back to Michelson no-one questioned > detecting the aether or its existence, Of course they did .. aether wasn't the only theory around for light. It happened to be the prevaling notion. Just assuming that something that we cannot detect actually exists isn't really doing science.. Once science started focusing on the aether itself, it ended up not being able to be detected .. so 'scientists' rationalised that it must have properties that don't 'make sense' in order to explain why we could not detect it 'done', we found no evidence for it to exist. > they just wanted to detect our > motion wrt its rest frame. That is one way of detecting that it exists .. that experiment failed to find any aether > They felt that this would be the icing on > the cake so-to-speak. It was only after this time that most have > rather conveniently redefined everything to try to remove the then > existing connections back to how they were originally defined. You have it backwards .. up until then (and for some time afterwards) things were being redefined so as to continue to allow for a faith that aether existed >> How is it any different to the empty spacetime of SR/GR? > > I guess Einstein said this best when he stated unambiguously "space > without aether is unthinkable"... That's not an answer >> If its not any different, then how can we say it exists? > > To remove it You speak of removing it as though it is something that exists. You can't remove something that isn't there. > you must declare that those element that are properties > of the aether simply exist by fiat' No .. SR/GR works just fine without a Lorentzian aether. Spacetime itself takes on the characteristics of an aether without actually being a 'substance'. It seems as though you're stuck in the thinking of a century ago and have ignored the progress of physics since then.
From: eric gisse on 11 May 2010 01:59 Inertial wrote: [...] > > It seems as though you're stuck in the thinking of a century ago and have > ignored the progress of physics since then. Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
From: harald on 11 May 2010 07:02 On May 11, 1:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > > > [from a Roberts prior post] > >> It boggles the mind to think you don't accept that two legs have > >> identical lengths if when you hold them up next to each other their > >> ends line up [or when a ruler measures them as equal]. > > > Let's try to attain some common ground by using the math: > > OK. But please remember I am using the context of SR, not some unspecified and > nebulous "aether" theory. And I am using SR as known in 2010, not as discussed > in 1905-20 (the meanings of some important words have changed since then).. Very good - you are making progress! As you now admit yourself, SRT has been reformulated almost beyond recognition (to avoid confusion, shouldn't we call that "Minkowski Spacetime Physics"?). But note that at least until 1932 (KTX), SRT was formulated and compared with other theories and hypotheses in the way that DDRR does. Certain concepts that those definitions relate to are difficult to understand in your language. Are you capable of a discussion with DDRR using the common definitions of words of SRT in the period 1905-1932? Coincidentally my main physics textbooks of around 1980 (alonso & Finnn) was mostly compatible with those definitions; that turned out to be very helpful for understanding old papers. Harald
From: Inertial on 11 May 2010 08:01
"harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:681a3280-dc36-4fff-858d-3c44e8e03edf(a)n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On May 11, 1:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> >> > [from a Roberts prior post] >> >> It boggles the mind to think you don't accept that two legs have >> >> identical lengths if when you hold them up next to each other their >> >> ends line up [or when a ruler measures them as equal]. >> >> > Let's try to attain some common ground by using the math: >> >> OK. But please remember I am using the context of SR, not some >> unspecified and >> nebulous "aether" theory. And I am using SR as known in 2010, not as >> discussed >> in 1905-20 (the meanings of some important words have changed since >> then). > > Very good - you are making progress! > As you now admit yourself, SRT has been reformulated almost beyond > recognition (to avoid confusion, shouldn't we call that "Minkowski > Spacetime Physics"?). He didn't say that .. do you commonly read things into posts that people don't say? > But note that at least until 1932 (KTX), SRT was formulated and > compared with other theories and hypotheses in the way that DDRR does. > Certain concepts that those definitions relate to are difficult to > understand in your language. Are you capable of a discussion with DDRR > using the common definitions of words of SRT in the period 1905-1932? What or who is DDRR ?? > Coincidentally my main physics textbooks of around 1980 (alonso & > Finnn) was mostly compatible with those definitions; that turned out > to be very helpful for understanding old papers. > > Harald |