SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 11:30 On 26 Juli, 17:07, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/26/10 9:45 AM, JT wrote: > > > The M&M settled that, however modern physics have presented absoulte > > rotation as a fact, without giving a proper backgroundanalyse of what > > is responsible of for creating this absolute forces, there must be > > somekind of electromagnetic or gravitational farfield that actually > > create the inertia when an object start to rotate. > > Inertia is always there. It appears to be a consequence of all the > momentum-energy of the universe. Well inertia is there when you try to change the state of motion of an object. When you not poke it, it will not suffer from any tension related to the forces of inertia. However a rotating object do always suffer from tension in the material, my supiscion is however that there will be no tension in material (accept for initial acceleration) if you rotate an object in deepspace. I was just thinking about how my nonescientific mind would go construct something that could measure the alleged rotational absolute force. I would vaccum a doublesided disc with a sideway plugged nozzle that requires pressure fill it to half with water wrap a bigger vaccumed disc around it. Once you spinn up the double disc and unplug nozzle, you could calculate the force by the water pressure from the nozzle. But there is probably easier way to measure the density created in the water. Do science really say that the pressure will be the same if you spinn it up in deepspace or at earth and unplug the nozzle, i find it puzzling. Especially noone have given any account for what kind of force that creates this rotationaly inertia and hold things from spinning in deepspace. JT
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 13:47 On 26 Juli, 17:30, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 Juli, 17:07, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/26/10 9:45 AM, JT wrote: > > > > The M&M settled that, however modern physics have presented absoulte > > > rotation as a fact, without giving a proper backgroundanalyse of what > > > is responsible of for creating this absolute forces, there must be > > > somekind of electromagnetic or gravitational farfield that actually > > > create the inertia when an object start to rotate. > > > Inertia is always there. It appears to be a consequence of all the > > momentum-energy of the universe. > > Well inertia is there when you try to change the state of motion of an > object. When you not poke it, it will not suffer from any tension > related to the forces of inertia. > > However a rotating object do always suffer from tension in the > material, my supiscion is however that there will be no tension in > material (accept for initial acceleration) if you rotate an object in > deepspace. > > I was just thinking about how my nonescientific mind would go > construct something that could measure the alleged rotational absolute > force. > > I would vaccum a doublesided disc with a sideway plugged nozzle that > requires pressure fill it to half with water wrap a bigger vaccumed > disc around it. > > Once you spinn up the double disc and unplug nozzle, you could > calculate the force by the water pressure from the nozzle. But there > is probably easier way to measure the density created in the water. > > Do science really say that the pressure will be the same if you spinn > it up in deepspace or at earth and unplug the nozzle, i find it > puzzling. Especially noone have given any account for what kind of > force that creates this rotationaly inertia and hold things from > spinning in deepspace. > > JT It is an interesting subject Sam what is your thoughts regarding the pressure from the nozzle in deepspace vs earth, at same rpm (relative the rotational rest state(whatever that is, i guess no pressure of water and no stress tension in materhial)) ????????? JT
From: kenseto on 26 Jul 2010 14:40 On Jul 26, 10:45 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 7 Juli, 15:41, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > Here's why: > > 1. The principle of relativity (PoR) says that all inertial frames > > including the unique absolute rest frame of the aether are > > equaivalent. > > > 2. This allows every SR observer to choose any frame to do physics and > > the rest frame of the aether is choosed because it is the simplest > > frame to do physics. > > > 3. Choosing the aether frame to do physics allows every SR observer to > > claim the exclusive properties of the aether frame which are: All the > > clocks moving wrt to an SR observer are running slow and all the ruler > > moving wrt him are contracted. > > > 4. However, choosing the aether frame to do physics is the reason why > > SR is incomplete. In real life all objects (including every SR > > observer)in the universe are in a state of absolute motion and the > > rate of a clock is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the > > clock. Therefore an SR observer cannot claim that all the clocks > > moving wrt him are running slow and all the ruler moving wrt him are > > contracted. In order to make SR complete an SR observer must include > > the possibility that an observed clock can run at a faster rate than > > his clock. > > > 5. IRT is a new theory of relativity. An IRT observer includes the > > possibilities that a clock moving wrt him can run fast by a factor of > > gamma or run slow by a factor of 1/gamma. Also an IRT observer posits > > that the light-path length of a meter stick moving wrt to him can be > > shorter by a factor of 1/gamma or longer by a factor of gamma. The > > standard for the light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick > > is assumed to be its physical length. With these interpretation of > > time and length all the problems and paradoxes of SR are resolved. > > > 6. A complete description of IRT is available in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > Ken Seto > > It is an incomplete aether theory, and that is even more troublesome > since the aether itself seems to be absent. The aether can be detected with the following proposed experiments. Also new interpretations for past experiments that detected absolute motion are included in this paper. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf Ken Seto > > The M&M settled that, however modern physics have presented absoulte > rotation as a fact, without giving a proper backgroundanalyse of what > is responsible of for creating this absolute forces, there must be > somekind of electromagnetic or gravitational farfield that actually > create the inertia when an object start to rotate. > > But i have not even seen any try to present such, therefor i beleive > it is probably loads of hogwash, there will be no inertia creating > rotational forces upon an object in deepspace it is only a conjecture > by people who do not know better. > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 15:23 On Jul 24, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 24, 10:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 24, 9:50 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 24, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 24, 9:09 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > There is a physical reason why clocks in relative motion are running > > > > > at different rates. SR failed to provide that reason. > > > > > I just told you the physical reason. > > > > I gather that you still don't understand the reason. > > > > In such events, your proper response would be, "I still don't > > > > understand the reason. How does the hyperbolic geometry of spacetime > > > > cause relatively moving clocks to have different rates?" And they we > > > > could discuss the reason in more detail. > > > > 'Hyperbolic geometry'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry > > > > "In mathematics, hyperbolic geometry (also called Lobachevskian > > > geometry or Bolyai-Lobachevskian geometry) is a non-Euclidean > > > geometry, meaning that the parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry is > > > replaced." > > > > 'Mathematics'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics > > > > 'Albert Einstein, on the other hand, stated that "as far as the laws > > > of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as > > > they are certain, they do not refer to reality."' > > > > 'Hyperbolic geometry' is not a physical description of what occurs > > > physically in nature to cause atomic clocks to tick at different > > > rates. > > > Of course it is. What makes you think it is not a physical > > description? > > You are unable to understand Albert Einstein. > > 'Mathematics'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics > > 'Albert Einstein, on the other hand, stated that "as far as the laws > of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as > they are certain, they do not refer to reality."' > Fascinating. So Einstein, who said that the hyperbolic geometry of spacetime is what causes atomic clocks to run at different rates, also said (according to you) that it is NOT what causes atomic clocks to run at different rates. And you got this because geometry sounds like mathematics to you, and you found a wikipedia link with a sentence that seems to support that, and you think that mathematics has nothing to do with reality, and you found a wikipedia link for an Einstein quote that seems to support that. And so in two quick steps, you found a way to interpret Einstein as saying exactly the opposite of what he in fact said. Lovely. PD
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 16:53
On 7/26/10 10:30 AM, JT wrote: > On 26 Juli, 17:07, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/26/10 9:45 AM, JT wrote: >> >>> The M&M settled that, however modern physics have presented absoulte >>> rotation as a fact, without giving a proper backgroundanalyse of what >>> is responsible of for creating this absolute forces, there must be >>> somekind of electromagnetic or gravitational farfield that actually >>> create the inertia when an object start to rotate. >> >> Inertia is always there. It appears to be a consequence of all the >> momentum-energy of the universe. > > Well inertia is there when you try to change the state of motion of an > object. When you not poke it, it will not suffer from any tension > related to the forces of inertia. > > However a rotating object do always suffer from tension in the > material, my supiscion is however that there will be no tension in > material (accept for initial acceleration) if you rotate an object in > deepspace. > Why don't you read about Newton's Bucket http://www.google.com/search?q=Newton%27s+Bucket |