SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 10:02 On Jul 7, 7:41 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. Yes. There are those who wish to DEFINE space as that which has no physical properties. We do not have the luxury to define what nature is. We can label something in nature as space and then figure out what its properties and behaviors are, but we can't define what they are. PD
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 10:03 On Jul 7, 7:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > Aether = Dark matter. > > '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" > > Space without dark matter is unthinkable. > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". > > 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. > > Einstein was unable to determine the cause of the state of the aether: > > " ... disregarding the causes which condition its state" > > The cause which conditions its state is its displacement by matter. > > (Aether/Dark Matter) and matter are different states of the same > material. > (Aether/Dark Matter) has mass. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' > A. EINSTEINhttp://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/dark matter). As matter transitions to (aether/dark matter) it > expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the > neighboring (aether/dark matter) and matter is energy. > > 'Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_827.html > > "A hypothesis for the formation of the huge dark matter ring holds > that it is a transient feature formed when galaxy cluster CL0024+17 > collided with another cluster of galaxies about one billion years ago, > leaving a ring similar to when a rock is thrown in a pond." > > Dark matter displacement on a galaxy cluster scale. > > 'Scientists supersize quantum mechanics'http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html > > "Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of > 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a > series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle > was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously." > > The 'push' and 'don't push' cause the associated dark matter > displacement waves. > > Dark matter displacement on the quantum scale. > > "Large quantum states could tell researchers more about the > relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity something that is > not well understood." > > The relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity is dark matter > displacement. > > The relationship is well understood in Dark Matter Displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Nice to see that you simply ignored the response that was given to you, pertinent to your question, Michael P. Cavedon. Nice to see that your approach to conversation is to spout nonsense, ask a question, ignore the answer, repeat the nonsense. PD
From: PD on 8 Jul 2010 10:05 On Jul 7, 8:58 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 9:45 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 10:58 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 7, 8:41 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Aether = Dark matter. > > > BAHAHAHA > > > [snip lack of evidence for ridiculous claim] > > > Nothing left > > A vacuum consists of dark matter. By definition, Mike? You get to DEFINE empty space as dark matter? The term "dark matter" is already taken and it means something entirely different to physicists. What gives you the idea you can use those words any way you want? > > A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. The > particle enters and exits a single slit. The associated wave enters > and exits multiple slits. The wave exits the slits and creates > interference. The interference alters the direction the particle > travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated > wave and there is no interference.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: harald on 8 Jul 2010 12:05 On Jul 7, 3:41 pm, 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. That's one way of putting it (close enough to Eddington)... > 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. That sounds like putting the horse on the rider. Perhaps you mean that we may pretend for doing physics that any "frame" of our choice is the "rest frame of the aether", 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. That's only a small selection of properties, see Newton for many more! > 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. An "SR observer" is not obliged to consider himself to be the center of the universe; normal people will not claim what you pretend that they claim. Instead, most people will admit that it's only a convenient perspective, and that we cannot say that all the clocks moving wrt ourselves are *truly* running slow. Thus that criticism on SRT is invalid. < 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 That sounds familiar. Maybe I heard this before somewhere? But where? ;-) Harald
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 20:10
On 7/8/10 6:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jul 7, 11:18 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 postulate or use the concept of aether! >> >> What is the experimental basis of special relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > So?? Let also have the same experimental basis. The reason is that > they both use the aether frame to derive the math. ??? > > Ken seto >> >> How do you add velocities in special relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html >> >> Can special relativity handle acceleration? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html > |