Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 18:18 On Jul 16, 3:18 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Either Ilja has or has not successfully accounted for the standard > model with his cellular ether theory. If he has, then your issues are > resolved. I admit to not having a full enough grasp of either the > standard model or Ilja's model at this point to debate the issues you > raise, however, my point was that it is not inconceivable to model all > forces with one medium. > Of course it's not inconceivable. However, to date it has not come to pass. So recapping where we ARE, we presently have: - a theory of relativity that accounts for the manifest covariance of any interaction, plus a pretty solid theory of how all those known interactions work up to the scale of about a TeV or so. - a conjecture that an undetected ether is responsible for the measurable effects of the Lorentz transformations and that a model of this one medium might conceivably account for the known behavior of interactions up to some energy scale not yet established.
From: eric gisse on 16 Jul 2010 18:50 colp wrote: > On Jul 15, 7:27 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> colp wrote: >> > On Jul 13, 7:51 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> colp wrote: >> >> > On Jul 12, 3:59 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> colp wrote: >> >> >> > On Jul 12, 12:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> colp wrote: >> >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> >> > Historically that hasn't been the case. Relativity was adopted >> >> >> >> > because it filled a philosophical niche, not because of it's >> >> >> >> > value as a predictive tool. >> >> >> >> >> I admire your kind of lying, because it takes balls to say with >> >> >> >> absolute certainty the factual equivalent of saying 'the sky is >> >> >> >> green'. >> >> >> >> > I'm not lying. >> >> >> >> Then you are so abundantly stupid that you should never speak on a >> >> >> technical subject ever again. >> >> >> >> > The early experiments didn't verify Einstein's >> >> >> > theories, but were made to look at though they did. >> >> >> >> Lying again. Or stupid, as mentioned above. >> >> >> >> Gravitational lensing is well established observational fact. >> >> >> >> > Re: Mercury's perihelion advance: >> >> >> >> I see no particular point into launching into a long discussion >> >> >> with you about yet another subject you do not understand. >> >> >> > I understand that you have no answer to the evidence of academic >> >> > fraud which is the theory of relativity. >> >> >> Post under your real name and then we can discuss what you think >> >> constitutes 'evidence'. >> >> > Evidence consists of relevant observations or logical arguments in >> > support of a particular claim. >> >> Accusations of 'academic fraud' by an anonymous person with no education >> in the subject mean absolutely nothing and are treated as such. > > This isn't such an accusation. "I understand that you have no answer to the evidence of academic fraud which is the theory of relativity." Lying or stupid, lying or stupid... > >> Post under you >> real name if you are going to be making those kinds of accusations. >> >> >> >> > Briefly, the evidence is the lack of early experimental support for >> > GR, >> >> It was nothing but perihelion advance of the planets and gravitational >> lensing for about a half century. GR wasn't especially useful until the >> 60's. > > This didn't seem to affect Einstein's rise to fame. Then maybe he did other things, just as I explained? > >> >> > the lack of experimental support for the reciprocal time dilation >> > predicted by SR, >> >> Time dilation is well verified by experiment. Do a literature search. > > Not _reciprocal_ dilation. The Hafele-Keating experiment showed that > _reciprocal_ dilation simply doesn't occur. Gosh, each clock viewed the other as having different amounts of time. Isn't that mutual time dilation? Lying or stupid, lying or stupid... > This is rather > unsuprising, since reciprocal dilation as implied by Einstien's > conjecture leads to paradoxes regarding time dilation. No, just your inability to understand. Which is unsurprising as it is irrelevant as you don't even have a grasp of classical mechanics. > >> >> > and the existence of experimental data which suggests >> > the existence of a preferred frame of reference in opposition to >> > Einstein's conjecture regarding the Principle of Relativity. >> >> No such data exists. > > The enforced ignorance of Einstein's conjecture. "No data exists > because you can't have a principle that is based on a false premise!" > > The Hafele-Keating experiment is one such example. You are stupid to bring out an experiment that confirms relativity as an argument against relativity, and are lying to say that it is. So I guess you are both lying *and* stupid...
From: Paul Stowe on 16 Jul 2010 22:07 On Jul 15, 6:50 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jul 16, 12:30 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > OK, let's take a rather mundane example of what is classically > > > > considered a system which has a definite rest frame, Earth's ocean. > > > > Consider a fish resting motionless in that medium. Is it a 'absolute' > > > > rest? Does that concept even apply to a fluidic medium? > > > > Yes, it is absolute in terms of the water and the fish. If we were > > > talking about molecules and intermolecular forces then wouldn't be as > > > simple. > > > At 'local' rest, not absolute rest even wrt the ocean. For you see, > > that fish is in the Gulf Stream, and is moving north at about 2 knot > > wrt the ocean floor, and, more importantly, a molecule of water atop > > the mid-atlantic ridge. > > Context bait & switch. Not at all... It was meant to lead you to understanding the limitation of mental exercises. While it is easy to conceive of an absolute space (a simple void for example) in is physically impossible to impose that idealized concept on our universe. In that universe all motion must be defined, and how you define it is up to you, nature cares not. The reality is, you cannot define motion relative to a void, there is simply no way to measure the imagined background grid. Even IF that void is filled with a medium the situation remains unchanged since, again, nature does not favor one state over any other. Wave speed will not be changed regardless of the movement of sources. This is true for any medium. You're barking up the wrong tree. Further, you come across as angry 'at' Einstein. Why??? I am an aetherist, the medium does have properties that are the result of its physical existence and background, inertia and observed massiveness for example. but railing against the notion of the relativity of linear motion is not useful or productive. It's a waste of your time and effort. But, OTOH, it's your time to waste. > > That is the point of this exercise, there is > > no 'real' at rest state in any fluidic medium. > > Just because the existence of something isn't obvious doesn't mean > that it doesn't exist. Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid theory. There is no concept of absolutes there. > Your argument is comparable with Einstein getting from an fallacy (in > his case an argument from ignorance) to a principle (i.e. the > "Principle or Relativity") in three easy steps. I guess even as an aetherist I stand in good company then :) > 1. Start with a fallacy and call it a conjecture. > 2. Raise the status of your conjecture to that of a postulate. > 3. Call your new postulate a principle. I abhor the use of the term principle when used in discussing physical science. IT"S A COP OUT! used to avoid having to explain any further. Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 16 Jul 2010 22:16 On Jul 16, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:18 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Either Ilja has or has not successfully accounted for the standard > > model with his cellular ether theory. If he has, then your issues are > > resolved. I admit to not having a full enough grasp of either the > > standard model or Ilja's model at this point to debate the issues you > > raise, however, my point was that it is not inconceivable to model all > > forces with one medium. > > Of course it's not inconceivable. However, to date it has not come to > pass. > > So recapping where we ARE, we presently have: > - a theory of relativity that accounts for the manifest covariance of > any interaction, plus a pretty solid theory of how all those known > interactions work up to the scale of about a TeV or so. > - a conjecture that an undetected ether is responsible for the > measurable effects of the Lorentz transformations and that a model of > this one medium might conceivably account for the known behavior of > interactions up to some energy scale not yet established. If the aether were 'undetected' the concept would never had dominated physical theory for nearly three hundred years. Just because the nature of matter was not known lead 'humans' to guess wrong about the nature of measuring devices did not and does not make it less detectable. Regardless of how one tries desperately to redefine those perviously observed properties. Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 16 Jul 2010 22:46
Paul Stowe wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 16, 3:18 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Either Ilja has or has not successfully accounted for the standard >> > model with his cellular ether theory. If he has, then your issues are >> > resolved. I admit to not having a full enough grasp of either the >> > standard model or Ilja's model at this point to debate the issues you >> > raise, however, my point was that it is not inconceivable to model all >> > forces with one medium. >> >> Of course it's not inconceivable. However, to date it has not come to >> pass. >> >> So recapping where we ARE, we presently have: >> - a theory of relativity that accounts for the manifest covariance of >> any interaction, plus a pretty solid theory of how all those known >> interactions work up to the scale of about a TeV or so. >> - a conjecture that an undetected ether is responsible for the >> measurable effects of the Lorentz transformations and that a model of >> this one medium might conceivably account for the known behavior of >> interactions up to some energy scale not yet established. > > If the aether were 'undetected' the concept would never had dominated > physical theory for nearly three hundred years. Just because the > nature of matter was not known lead 'humans' to guess wrong about the > nature of measuring devices did not and does not make it less > detectable. Regardless of how one tries desperately to redefine those > perviously observed properties. > > Paul Stowe A century of searching has come up with exactly bupkis. There is no aether. Give it up, Paul. |