****Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Proof that consciousness is NOT in the brain
Next: When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Re: Salt on Venus)
From: mpc755 on 5 Jun 2010 00:22 On Jun 5, 12:00 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 11:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:55 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, mpc755 wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 2:45 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Mike Cavedon wrote: > > > > >>> Einstein left all of the information necessary in order for physics to > > > >>> take the next step. > > > > >>> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' > > > >>>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > >>> "The state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > >>> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... > > > >>> disregarding the causes which condition its state." > > > > >>> Einstein did not determine the cause which conditions the aether's > > > >>> state. > > > > >> So, am I to take it that this might be a defect? > > > > > Not a defect at all. In fact, it shows the strength of Einstein. > > > > Einstein knew the state of the aether was determined by its > > > > connections with matter. Einstein also know the aether was not an > > > > absolutely stationary space. What Einstein was not able to determined > > > > was the cause of the condition. > > > > > The cause of the condition is the displacement of aether by matter. > > > > Sure sounds like a defect to me. > > > My guess as to why Einstein did not figure out the cause which > > conditions the state of the aether as being the aether's state of > > displacement is because of SR. Einstein's attempt to figure out a > > unified theory was hindered by SR. What Einstein did not figure out is > > the rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is determined by the aether > > pressure in which it exists. In SR, the state of the aether is the > > same for the embankment frame of reference as it is for the train > > frame of reference. This is incorrect. What caused Einstein to not be > > able to figure out a unified theory is his concept of Relative > > required the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of > > reference to be equal in all respects. That is incorrect. > > > 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. > > > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment > > than it is for the train. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and > > the light from the lightning strikes arrive at the Observer at M on > > the embankment simultaneously. > > > The Observers on the train get together at M' and synchronize there > > clocks. The Observer walking towards B' is walking against the 'flow' > > of the aether which exerts additional pressure on the atomic clock > > causing it to tick slower. The Observer walking towards A' is walking > > with the 'flow' of aether which exerts less pressure on the atomic > > clock causing it to tick faster. When the Observers arrive at A' and > > B', the clocks at A', M', and B' state the time as 12:00:03, 12:00:02, > > and 12:00:01, respectively. Once at A' and B' all of the clocks are at > > rest with respect to the train, exist under the same amount of aether > > pressure, and tick at the same rate. > > > When the lightning strikes occur the clock at A' reads 12:00:03 and > > the clock at B' reads 12:00:01. The light from B/B' arrives at M' > > prior to the light from A/A'. When the three Observers get back > > together at M' they conclude the lightning strike B/B' occurred prior > > to the lightning strike at A/A'. > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. > > Let's take this to the next step. The Observers on the embankment and > the Observers on the train decide the aether is at rest with respect > to the surface of the Earth. This means the Observers have decided the > aether is at rest with respect to the embankment and the aether is not > at rest with respect to the train. > > Accordingly, the Observers on the train factor this in as they arrive > with their clocks at A' and B'. The Observer who walked towards B' > knows they walked against the 'flow' of aether and offset their atomic > clock accordingly. The Observer who walked towards A' knows they > walked with the 'flow' of aether and offset their atomic clock > accordingly. > > When the clocks are at A', M', and B' they all wind up being set to > 12:00:02. > > Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at the Observer at > M' simultaneously. > > The light from B/B' arrives at M' prior to the light from A/A'. When > the three Observers on the train get back together they determine the > clocks at A' and B' both read 12:00:02 and all three Observers, even > though the light did not arrive at M' simultaneously, conclude the > lightning strikes occurred simultaneously with respect to the aether > which they have decided is at rest with respect to the surface of the > Earth. Should have read: Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at the Observer at M on the embankment simultaneously.
From: mpc755 on 5 Jun 2010 12:10 What physically occurs in nature to cause curved 'space-time', E=mc^2, conservation of mass, conservation of energy, gravity, double slit experiments, Higg's background field, what physically occurs in nature to cause atomic clocks to 'tick' at different rates, Einstein's train gedanken, and on and on and on the list of things which are misunderstood in physics today are easily understood in the theory of Aether Displacement. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." 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. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters and exits multiple slits. The aether wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the aether wave and there is no interference. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. The physical effect of mæther decompressing is energy. Mass is conserved. The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth" causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). 'The Need to Understand Mass' By Roger Cashmore Department of Physics University of Oxford, UK. http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs2.htm "There is, however, one very clever and very elegant solution to this problem, a solution first proposed by Peter Higgs. He proposed that the whole of space is permeated by a field, similar in some ways to the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what appears to be mass. This is similar to the action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any thick liquid. the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear to have. Thus the existence of this field is essential in Higg's hypothesis for the production of the mass of particles." The "action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any thick liquid" is the particles interaction with the aether. The force is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle. The "thick liquid" is the aether behaving as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'. "the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear to have." The faster the particle moves with respect to the aether, the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle. 'Politics, Solid State and the Higgs' By David Miller Department of Physics and Astronomy University College, London, UK. http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs3.htm "1. The Higgs Mechanism In three dimensions, and with the complications of relativity, this is the Higgs mechanism. In order to give particles mass, a background field is invented which becomes locally distorted whenever a particle moves through it. The distortion - the clustering of the field around the particle - generates the particle's mass. The idea comes directly from the physics of solids. Instead of a field spread throughout all space a solid contains a lattice of positively charged crystal atoms. When an electron moves through the lattice the atoms are attracted to it, causing the electron's effective mass to be as much as 40 times bigger than the mass of a free electron." The distortion of the background field is the displacement of the aether by the moving particle. The 'clustering' of the field around the particle is the 'displacing back'. The 'clustering' of the field is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle. "The idea comes directly from the physics of solids." The aether behaves as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'.
From: mpc755 on 5 Jun 2010 15:35 What physically occurs in nature to cause curved 'space-time', E=mc^2, conservation of mass, conservation of energy, gravity, double slit experiments, Higg's background field, what physically occurs in nature to cause atomic clocks to 'tick' at different rates, Einstein's train gedanken, and on and on and on the list of things which are misunderstood in physics today are easily understood in the theory of Aether Displacement. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." 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. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters and exits multiple slits. The aether wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the aether wave and there is no interference. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. The physical effect of mæther decompressing is energy. Mass is conserved. The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth" causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). 'The Need to Understand Mass' By Roger Cashmore Department of Physics University of Oxford, UK. http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs2.htm "There is, however, one very clever and very elegant solution to this problem, a solution first proposed by Peter Higgs. He proposed that the whole of space is permeated by a field, similar in some ways to the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what appears to be mass. This is similar to the action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any thick liquid. the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear to have. Thus the existence of this field is essential in Higg's hypothesis for the production of the mass of particles." The "action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any thick liquid" is the particles interaction with the aether. The force is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle. The "thick liquid" is the aether behaving as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'. "the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear to have." The faster the particle moves with respect to the aether, the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle. 'Politics, Solid State and the Higgs' By David Miller Department of Physics and Astronomy University College, London, UK. http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs3.htm "1. The Higgs Mechanism In three dimensions, and with the complications of relativity, this is the Higgs mechanism. In order to give particles mass, a background field is invented which becomes locally distorted whenever a particle moves through it. The distortion - the clustering of the field around the particle - generates the particle's mass. The idea comes directly from the physics of solids. Instead of a field spread throughout all space a solid contains a lattice of positively charged crystal atoms. When an electron moves through the lattice the atoms are attracted to it, causing the electron's effective mass to be as much as 40 times bigger than the mass of a free electron." The distortion of the background field is the displacement of the aether by the moving particle. The 'clustering' of the field around the particle is the 'displacing back'. The 'clustering' of the field is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle. "The idea comes directly from the physics of solids." The aether behaves as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'.
From: PD on 6 Jun 2010 18:00 On Jun 4, 6:38 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > > On Jun 3, 6:57 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >> I kinda followed a lot of what you wrote. Yes, I see some problems > >> according to what you say. What it boils down to for me is that a lot of > >> these "theories" or "explanations" are very non-intuitive. I like > >> intuitive understandings, etc., but it bothers me that to "understand" > >> some of this weird stuff, you have to accept non-intuitive intellectual > >> "constructs" which seem to me to be full of intuitive sub-constructs. The > >> book I cited did not go into the semantic/intepretational level, but did > >> accept that there were problems. I might type up a few quotes from the > >> chapter on the wave-particle duality where the author was hedging what he > >> wrote. Hope you are following what I'm saying. > > > I think you've nailed your own apprehensions on the head, and this is > > not uncommon. Many people believe that a physical theory ought to make > > intuitive sense FIRST and THEN if it also fits data well, it can be > > considered successful. Or conversely, if you have a theory that fits > > the data well but doesn't make intuitive sense, then there is > > nonetheless something wrong with it. > > Yes, but there are other issues such as: can the data be explained by > alternate models. Also, I was never all that satisfied with the "ether" > model because it seemed like a "fudge". I've answered this already in this string. > > Then, the whole idea of an expanding universe was something uncanny. How > do you have a finite universe, expanding at the speed of light, and this > infinite megazillion light-years size ball of galaxies all has to be > "inside" an even bigger infinite box of, what, nothingness? No. That's just it. Something that is finite does not need to have an edge. The *surface* (and keep in mind I'm talking about the *surface*, not the volume) is finite but has no edge. The edge to a surface is a curve. Where is the curve that represents the edge to that 2D surface? When you get your head wrapped around that notion, then you can see the same idea applies just as readily (though more hard for us as humans to *visualize*) to 3D and 4D spaces. > > So, my short, frank answer is going to be: OK, I am incapable of > understanding, accepting this non-intuititive knowledge. Almost a paradox.. You're not incapable. You just need to walk through it a little more slowly and reshape a few ideas. > > However, when I read the works of philosophers who went into interesting > detail on Newton's laws (eg. that book I said I read: "Beyond the edge > of certainty" by Colodney), I realized that one's thinking has to be > much more careful. And, for the record, I _did_ follow what those guys > wrote (and they were all professors at universities, too). > > > However, this approach is not the best one in science. Intuition is a > > liar and a cheat. > > It also gives you that "gut feeling" that something ain't right. Which is not necessarily something you should trust. In all cases, the recourse to experimental comparison is a good way to be sure. In fact, it's the ONLY way. > > _MAYBE_ intuition can _sometimes_ be a liar and a cheat, and I can think > of examples where deeper study reveals a better picture. > > > PD > >
From: Me, ...again! on 6 Jun 2010 21:21
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, PD wrote: > On Jun 4, 6:38 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote: >>> On Jun 3, 6:57 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> >>>> I kinda followed a lot of what you wrote. Yes, I see some problems >>>> according to what you say. What it boils down to for me is that a lot of >>>> these "theories" or "explanations" are very non-intuitive. I like >>>> intuitive understandings, etc., but it bothers me that to "understand" >>>> some of this weird stuff, you have to accept non-intuitive intellectual >>>> "constructs" which seem to me to be full of intuitive sub-constructs. The >>>> book I cited did not go into the semantic/intepretational level, but did >>>> accept that there were problems. I might type up a few quotes from the >>>> chapter on the wave-particle duality where the author was hedging what he >>>> wrote. Hope you are following what I'm saying. >> >>> I think you've nailed your own apprehensions on the head, and this is >>> not uncommon. Many people believe that a physical theory ought to make >>> intuitive sense FIRST and THEN if it also fits data well, it can be >>> considered successful. Or conversely, if you have a theory that fits >>> the data well but doesn't make intuitive sense, then there is >>> nonetheless something wrong with it. >> >> Yes, but there are other issues such as: can the data be explained by >> alternate models. Also, I was never all that satisfied with the "ether" >> model because it seemed like a "fudge". > > I've answered this already in this string. Fine. >> >> Then, the whole idea of an expanding universe was something uncanny. How >> do you have a finite universe, expanding at the speed of light, and this >> infinite megazillion light-years size ball of galaxies all has to be >> "inside" an even bigger infinite box of, what, nothingness? > > No. That's just it. Something that is finite does not need to have an > edge. That is beyond me. But you left out a lot, too. > The *surface* (and keep in mind I'm talking about the *surface*, not > the volume) is finite but has no edge. Still beyond me. The edge to a surface is a > curve. Two dimensional, three dimentional, one dimentional?/????? > Where is the curve that represents the edge to that 2D surface? > When you get your head wrapped around that notion, then you can see > the same idea applies just as readily (though more hard for us as > humans to *visualize*) to 3D and 4D spaces. Lost me back in the beginning. >> >> So, my short, frank answer is going to be: OK, I am incapable of >> understanding, accepting this non-intuititive knowledge. Almost a paradox. > > You're not incapable. You just need to walk through it a little more > slowly and reshape a few ideas. Yeah, sounds like a fudge. Yeah, I read George Gamow's "1-2-3 infinity" and he talked about some of this, and, frankly, he did a better job, too. >> >> However, when I read the works of philosophers who went into interesting >> detail on Newton's laws (eg. that book I said I read: "Beyond the edge >> of certainty" by Colodney), I realized that one's thinking has to be >> much more careful. And, for the record, I _did_ follow what those guys >> wrote (and they were all professors at universities, too). >> >>> However, this approach is not the best one in science. Intuition is a >>> liar and a cheat. >> >> It also gives you that "gut feeling" that something ain't right. > > Which is not necessarily something you should trust. In all cases, the > recourse to experimental comparison is a good way to be sure. In fact, > it's the ONLY way. Experimental findings can be misinterpretations and experiment design can have flaws. >> >> _MAYBE_ intuition can _sometimes_ be a liar and a cheat, and I can think >> of examples where deeper study reveals a better picture. >> >>> PD >> >> > > |