Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
in [Physics]
|
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 13:24 Calling an instantaneous point particle a dust particle is just one example. A second example is absolute space-time rather than the word ether. Einstein (paraphrasing) Space-time is curved. There are currents in space-time and waves in space-time (gravity waves). Lets face it that is an ether. Call it the quantum foam, that is what I call it, and people say that it exhibits graininess and we know that from Plank, but something is there and we know it is not a pure vacuum. Magnetism is clearly waves in this something. If you hold two magnets (like poles) in close proximity you can feel this spongy push between them from the wave pressure. An invisible something. Well of course there is an ether. I think people still do not understand the results of Michelson and Morley. Light has no mass, so nothing hinders its progress, including ether. Why is that so mysterious?
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 21:33 On May 29, 1:24 pm, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > Calling an instantaneous point particle a dust particle is just one example. > > A second example is absolute space-time rather than the word ether. > > Einstein (paraphrasing) > Space-time is curved. There are currents in space-time and waves in > space-time (gravity waves). > > Lets face it that is an ether. Call it the quantum foam, that is what I > call it, and people say that it exhibits graininess and we know that > from Plank, but something is there and we know it is not a pure vacuum. > > Magnetism is clearly waves in this something. If you hold two magnets > (like poles) in close proximity you can feel this spongy push between > them from the wave pressure. > An invisible something. Well of course there is an ether. > > I think people still do not understand the results of Michelson and > Morley. Light has no mass, so nothing hinders its progress, including ether. > > Why is that so mysterious? Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. In Einstein's train gedanken this means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the train.
From: mpc755 on 30 May 2010 00:18 On May 29, 3:41 pm, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > On 5/30/2010 4:04, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > In article<FkkMn.74156$0B5.69...(a)newsfe05.iad>, h...(a)my.com says... > > >> Lets consider this again for a moment. The train. > > >> You toss a ball up on a train and Newton's laws apply. Uniform motion > >> the ball is already in motion. Now Einstein said that it depends on your > >> frame of reference. > > >> Newton said if we could stand back and examine the universe and plotted > >> a grid on that universe we could have a coordinate system for absolute > >> space. > > >> Einstein said we don't need to do that since we can't do that but we can > >> do the same thing and map our local area or any local area providing we > >> make the assumption that anywhere in the universe the laws are the same. > >> And then we must not use a concept of universal time, since we can't see > >> the hands on that clock, instead we need to use local time. And then we > >> have to include that in our calculations as it applies specifically to > >> the event. xyzt a point in time. > > >> Now depending on how accurate your measurements are, if you analyze that > >> ball it is meeting resistance of the aether if you want to spell it that > >> way since the ball has mass. Even in uniform motion but it would be very > >> small. If the train accelerates you find out right away that you are > >> moving wrt absolute space-time since your ball does not follow the same > >> curved trajectory, it hits the back wall of the accellerating train as > >> your head hits the seat rest. > > > The interaction of the ball and the aether is frictionless. > > What about the permittivity and permeability of free space? I think > there must be some minute drag if for no other reason then perfect > uniform motion is impossible in a curvy non-Euclidean universe. > > It's probably not enough to include in any calculations though. > Certainly not on the classical level. > > Regarding light again from Wiki > "For objects within our Galaxy with a given absolute magnitude, 5 is > added to the apparent magnitude for every tenfold increase in the > distance to the object. This relationship does not apply for objects at > very great distances (far beyond our galaxy), since a correction for > General Relativity must then be taken into account due to the > non-Euclidean nature of space." > > Now they are trying to say that since space is curved, or warped, and > side stepping the loss of energy of light through space. > > So how does this translate into English? The star is still white, but > small? If it is very far away? Or the light appears red if it is far > away? Or the light is less intense and does intensity affect the > perceived size? You see I am not sure how they are looking at magnitude. > > Number of candles. Well they are all white light lets say. > So then it would appear brighter. Larger. Whiter. What if it appears > blue? Very intense? > > You have Cherenkov radiation which is blue because it is actually > traveling faster than c. So I think we just use convenient perspectives > and c is a constant but it is a set value and then you measure the > effects of the medium it is in on it by comparison to that value but > then merely maintain that value at c, if you want and talk about the > shape or size of the wave packet instead. There is always a photon in > the detector, so they must be traveling at c. > > I think using lasers and fringing you can see that light is not a > constant speed. So then the aether is in some way affecting the speed of > light, just like glass or water does. > > And again I think that it must be attributed to the superconducting > superfluid is not 100% superconducting or superfluidious. > But then how do you separate in this case dark matter, dark energy, gas > and space dust from the aether. > > It is all part of the same thing. And it could slow light waves down > simply by its presence, lets say a gas cloud in space, because the rate > at which the aether vibrates as teh light wave travels through will be > hindered by that mass. > > So even if the light wave itself is not obstructed by the mass, the > medium it is in, is affected by that mass. There is no lose of energy when an object interacts with the aether because the aether behaves as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'. The medium is affected by the mass and the mass is affected by the medium. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Aether is displaced by matter. Displacement creates pressure. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. Using terms like 'hindered' and 'slow down' are incorrect. Think simply in the term 'pressure'. A particle moving with constant momentum through a frictionless superfluid will have pressure exerted towards it by the frictionless superfluid but the pressure will be applied equally to every part of the particle or the interaction would not be frictionless. A moving particle displaces the frictionless superfluid. The frictionless superfluid 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the frictionless superfluid towards the particle. A moving particle does not leave an empty void in its wake. The frictionless superfluid fills in where the particle had been. This filling in of the space where the particle had been by the frictionless superfluid is evidence of the pressure the displaced frictionless superfluid applies towards the particle.
From: Sam Wormley on 30 May 2010 01:26 On 5/29/10 12:24 PM, rick_s wrote: > Magnetism is clearly waves in this something. If you hold two magnets > (like poles) in close proximity you can feel this spongy push between > them from the wave pressure. Maxwell's laws cover your phenomenon of magnetism. The electromagnetic force is carried by photons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~heroux/images/Particle_chart.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
From: mpc755 on 30 May 2010 06:00
On May 29, 4:55 pm, rick_s <h...(a)my.com> wrote: > > A moving particle does not leave an empty void in its wake. The > > frictionless superfluid fills in where the particle had been. This > > filling in of the space where the particle had been by the > > frictionless superfluid is evidence of the pressure the displaced > > frictionless superfluid applies towards the particle. > > So what happens then when a blue shifted galaxy, one that heading > towards us, if it were to accelerate. It would appear blue shifted, then > ultraviolet, then x-rays, then gamma rays. > Not only would it be heading towards us, but in front of it deadly > radiation which was just candlelight even at its source. > > You head towards candle light in space at an accelerated rate and as you > chase along that light ray the intensity increases and it turns to > radiation. A light on a bullet would appear blue shifted. When a lightning strike occurs at A/A' and B/B' in Einstein's train gedanken the light waves move with respect to the aether who's state is mostly defined by its connections with the Earth. The Observer at M on the embankment is more at rest with respect to the aether and as such more at rest with respect to the light traveling from A/A' and B/ B' towards M. The Observer at M' on the train is moving towards the light from the lightning strike at B/B' and away from the light from the lightning strike at A/A'. Both Observer at M on the embankment concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous based upon the clocks at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M' on the train concludes the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A' based upon the clocks on the train. Both Observers conclude the light travels at 'c'. |