SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: artful on 8 Jul 2010 08:03 On Jul 8, 9:56 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 11:17 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/7/10 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > > There has never been an observation that contracts a prediction > > of special relativity. It remains a very fruitful theory and > > you should take the time to learn it, Seto. Hint: Special relativity > > does not posulate or use the concept of aether! > > wrong....every SR observer chooses the aether frame to do physics. No .. they don't, they usually 'do physics' in their own rest frame. There is no aether frame in SR Try some more lies, ken
From: kenseto on 8 Jul 2010 08:09 On Jul 7, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 8:41 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > You must be talking about a theory other than SR, because: > > > 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. > > The principle of equivalence explicitly says that there is no > preferred frame. No it says that all frames are equivalent and the only way for that to happen is that they all use the same aether frame to derive the math. > Your statement is equivalent to saying, "No man is better than any > other man, including the man that is better than other men." > > > > > 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. > > No, SR does NOT choose that frame. It uses any frame equally. You call the aether frame as an inertial frame and that's why you can use any frame equally. > > > > > 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. > > That is not the exclusive property of the aether frame. That statement > is one you made up. Yes they are the exclusive properties of the aether frame....every LET observer accept that the aether frame exists and claims these exclusive properties....that's why LET and SR have the same math. Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 8 Jul 2010 08:14 On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/7/10 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > Einstein wrote in 1905: > "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove > to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be > developed will not require an "absolutely stationary > space" provided with special properties, nor assign a > velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place". Ah but every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the aether frame. For you to claim that the aether frame is not needed for SR is like claiming that your mather is not your mother. > > See: > > ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > By A. Einstein > June 30, 1905 > > It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually > understood at the present time--when applied to moving > bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be > inherent in the phenomena. > > Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action > of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon > here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor > and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp > distinction between the two cases in which either the one > or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the > magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there > arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric > field with a certain definite energy, producing a current > at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. > > But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in > motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of > the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > electromotive force, to which in itself there is no > corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming > equality of relative motion in the two cases > discussed--to electric currents of the same path and > intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the > former case. > > Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful > attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively > to the "light medium," suggest that the phenomena of > electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. > > They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to (1) > the first order of small quantities, the same laws of > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames > of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold > good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which > will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') > to the status of a postulate, > > and also introduce another postulate, which is only (2) > apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that > light is always propagated in empty space with a definite > velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of > the emitting body. > > These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a > simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of > moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary > bodies. > > The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove > to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be > developed will not require an "absolutely stationary > space" provided with special properties, nor assign a > velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place. > > And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas > and make his case...
From: kenseto on 8 Jul 2010 08:37 On Jul 7, 8:41 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 5:26 pm, Mike Cavedon <mikecave...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 1:13 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 7/7/10 8:41 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > > > > Einstein wrote in 1905: > > > > "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove > > > > to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be > > > > developed will not require an "absolutely stationary > > > > space" provided with special properties, nor assign a > > > > velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > > > > electromagnetic processes take place". > > > > > See: > > > > > ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > > > > By A. Einstein > > > > June 30, 1905 > > > > > It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually > > > > understood at the present time--when applied to moving > > > > bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be > > > > inherent in the phenomena. > > > > > Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action > > > > of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon > > > > here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor > > > > and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp > > > > distinction between the two cases in which either the one > > > > or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the > > > > magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there > > > > arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric > > > > field with a certain definite energy, producing a current > > > > at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. > > > > > But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in > > > > motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of > > > > the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > > > > electromotive force, to which in itself there is no > > > > corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming > > > > equality of relative motion in the two cases > > > > discussed--to electric currents of the same path and > > > > intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the > > > > former case. > > > > > Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful > > > > attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively > > > > to the "light medium," suggest that the phenomena of > > > > electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no > > > > properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. > > > > > They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to (1) > > > > the first order of small quantities, the same laws of > > > > electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames > > > > of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold > > > > good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which > > > > will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') > > > > to the status of a postulate, > > > > > and also introduce another postulate, which is only (2) > > > > apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that > > > > light is always propagated in empty space with a definite > > > > velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of > > > > the emitting body. > > > > > These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a > > > > simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of > > > > moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary > > > > bodies. > > > > > The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove > > > > to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be > > > > developed will not require an "absolutely stationary > > > > space" provided with special properties, nor assign a > > > > velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > > > > electromagnetic processes take place. > > > > > And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas > > > > and make his case... > > > > What part of 'inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not > > > require an "absolutely stationary space"' are you not able to > > > understand? > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > > > unthinkable" > > > > Are you suggesting Einstein choose to believe in two ethers? > > > Yes, exactly. Read the later part of the second paper, where he > > explains this: > > "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of > > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, > > therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of > > relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there > > not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of > > existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), > > nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this > > ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic > > of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked > > through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." > > > The luminiferous ether which was referred to in the first paper was > > precisely that: endowed with qualities characteristic of ponderable > > media, and whose motion could be tracked with time. That was the point > > of the MMX, to measure the motion of the ether with respect to the > > apparatus. > > > So yes indeed, Michael P. Cavedon, QA engineer for a software company, > > Einstein was talking about two different kinds of ether, and his > > latter paper aimed to make precisely this distinction. That > > distinction could not be made any plainer. > > > Thank you for clearly laying out that you cannot read an article for > > comprehension to save your life. > > > > Of course not. What you are doing is parsing the sentence you quoted > > > in order to purposely misinterpret what Einstein said. Einstein is > > > specifically referring to an absolutely stationary space as > > > superfluous. > > > > "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. > > > > The cause which conditions its state is its displacement by matter.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Effectively, the 'aether' of GR is simply a label for spacetime and > its properties. Spacetime isn't just a property-less dimensionless > void, but rather is something that has particular spatial and temporal > dimensions and a finite maximum 'speed' at which information can be > propagated through it etc etc.- Hide quoted text - > So calling the aether "spacetime" eliminates the aether??? you are an idiot. > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 09:57
On Jul 8, 7:09 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 7, 8:41 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > SR is an incomplete aether theory. > > > You must be talking about a theory other than SR, because: > > > > 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. > > > The principle of equivalence explicitly says that there is no > > preferred frame. > > No it says that all frames are equivalent Yes. > and the only way for that to > happen is that they all use the same aether frame to derive the math. No, that's what YOU say. That's not what SR says. SR says you don't need to use the aether frame, you can use any frame, because all frames are equivalent. That should be obvious. It's when you mix what SR says with what YOU say that nonsense results. > > > Your statement is equivalent to saying, "No man is better than any > > other man, including the man that is better than other men." > > > > 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. > > > No, SR does NOT choose that frame. It uses any frame equally. > > You call the aether frame as an inertial frame and that's why you can > use any frame equally. No, I don't. The aether frame is a preferred frame. I've already told you that the preferred frame is the one that is NOT equivalent to the equivalent inertial frames. YOU say that inertial frames are really the aether frame. SR does not say that. It's when you mix what SR says with what YOU say that nonsense results. > > > > > > 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. > > > That is not the exclusive property of the aether frame. That statement > > is one you made up. > > Yes they are the exclusive properties of the aether frame. Thats what YOU say. That's not what physicists mean by the aether frame or the preferred frame. It's when you mix what SR says with what YOU say that nonsense results. >...every LET > observer accept that the aether frame exists and claims these > exclusive properties....that's why LET and SR have the same math. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |