SR is an incomplete aether theory.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: EINSTEIN'S ABUSE OF TIME
Next: MYTH: 'Obama admin turned down foreign assistance' (and other Right-Wing Noory Distortions)
From: Inertial on 26 Jul 2010 08:56 "kenseto" wrote in message news:0efa608a-f0f9-4323-aa54-72f86a721181(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > No idiot.....the value for the one-way speed of light never been > measured. Of course it has >c is a defined value as follows: >1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-second >Therefore the speed of light is a constant ratio as follows: >c=1 light-second/1 second No . It is a constant .. it is part of the standard. Distance is derived from it. >If the one-way speed of light is measured using physical ruler you >will find it's value to be distance dependent Nope. Tired light is a dead theory. > and this is due to the >absolute motion of the detector. What does that have to do with distance .. two unrelated things.
From: Inertial on 26 Jul 2010 08:59 "kenseto" wrote in message news:e17c9b0d-85dd-4cf1-bb06-154aa93711e7(a)t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 25, 9:47 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 24, 11:48 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> > No all clocks in relative motion run at different rates. >> Wrong .. try again. >No Wrong still, Ken. You just don't get it. They don't run at difference rates in SR. Only in GR where there are different gravitational potentials does that happen. Clocks are MEASURED as being slow by observers in moving frames of reference.
From: mpc755 on 26 Jul 2010 10:12 On Jul 24, 12:30 pm, 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."' > > By reality, Einstein was describing what occurs physically in nature. > > 'Hyperbolic geometry' is not a physical description of what occurs > physically in nature to cause atomic clocks to tick at different > rates. > > 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 fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). > > The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the > matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to > the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating > Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. The aether is > displaced by the Earth. Aether is not at rest when displaced and > returns to its previous state after interacting with the Earth. This > causes the aether to have the affect of 'flowing' east to west with > respect to the surface of the Earth. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html > > "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the > flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and > gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors > are the corresponding standard deviations." > > Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the > 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a > greater aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock > to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is > flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the > Earth, causing a lower aether pressure on the atomic clock causing the > atomic clock to tick faster. > > The experiments are evidence of Aether Displacement. > > Why can't you answer any of the following? > > Why doesn't conservation of momentum apply to downgraded photon pairs? > If it did then it would be understood the downgraded photon pair > maintain the original photon's momentum which requires the downgraded > photon pair to have opposite angular momentums and to always be > detected with opposite spins which means there is no need for the > absurd nonsense of instantaneous action at a distance. > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > water." > > Does the ripple eventually reach the Earth? If not then were does the > dark matter end and is where the dark matter ends the beginning of a > void and if not a void then what are the properties space has where > there is no dark matter and how do these properties distinguish this > region of space from dark matter? If so then that is evidence dark > matter exists from the point of the galaxy cluster collision to the > Earth. > > Dark matter exists between the Earth and the galaxy cluster collision. > The ripple will reach the Earth. > The ripple propagates through the dark matter which exists between the > Earth and the galaxy cluster collision. > Dark matter is the medium in which the ripple propagates. > Dark matter is the medium in which light waves propagate. > > The ripple is a gravity wave. > The ripple is displaced dark matter. > > Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause spacetime to curve > but not move. > Explain what occurs physically in nature which allows a C-60 molecule > to enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously > without losing momentum. > Explain what occurs physically in nature when mass converts to energy. > Explain what occurs physically in nature which allows the future to > determine the past. > Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. > > Dark Matter Displacement explains what occurs physically in nature in > all of the above. > > Dark matter is displaced by matter. > Dark matter is not at rest when displaced. > Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards the matter. > A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. > Physical effects caused by matter converting to dark matter is energy. > Mass is conserved. > The future does not determine the past in the physics of nature. > Pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is gravity. 'Geometry and Experience (1922) by Albert Einstein' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geometry_and_Experience "Sub specie aeterni Poincaré, in my opinion, is right. The idea of the measuring-rod and the idea of the clock co-ordinated with it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence in the real world. It is also clear that the solid body and the clock do not in the conceptual edifice of physics play the part of irreducible elements, but that of composite structures, which may not play any independent part in theoretical physics. But it is my conviction that in the present stage of development of theoretical physics these ideas must still be employed as independent ideas; for we are still far from possessing such certain knowledge of theoretical principles as to be able to give exact theoretical constructions of solid bodies and clocks." The solid body and the clock do not in the conceptual edifice of physics play the part of irreducible elements because they are both constructed from compressed dark matter. We are no longer far from possessing such certain knowledge of theoretical principles as to be able to give exact theoretical constructions of solid bodies and clocks. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the dark matter pressure in which it exists.
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 10:45 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 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
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 11:07
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. |