Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
Next: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
From: glird on 17 Oct 2009 11:47 On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote: > ><A light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether. > Given that "the aether' (or "ether") denotes the matter filling a given volume of space, then Yes. BUT!! Only if we measure speed in quantity of matter traversed per unit time, i.e. density/sec. If we measure speed in cm/sec, then c holds good only if the density is as low as it is in a vacuum. < And that includes the bending of light around massive objects.> In terms of c = densa/sec, Yes. In terms of c = ft/sec, No. < Light travels relative to the aether displaced by massive objects. > Not so. Light waves travel relative to the ether COMPOSING massive objects if any are part of the local aether through which a ray is traveling. glird
From: mpc755 on 17 Oct 2009 12:15 On Oct 17, 11:47 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote: > > > > ><A light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether. > > > Given that "the aether' (or "ether") denotes the matter filling a > given volume of space, then Yes. BUT!! Only if we measure speed in > quantity of matter traversed per unit time, i.e. density/sec. If we > measure speed in cm/sec, then c holds good only if the density is as > low as it is in a vacuum. > Correct. When light travels through water, it is still propagating through the aether which exists in the water. > < And that includes the bending of light around massive objects.> > In terms of c = densa/sec, Yes. > In terms of c = ft/sec, No. > > < Light travels relative to the aether displaced by massive objects. > > > Not so. Light waves travel relative to the ether COMPOSING massive > objects if any are part of the local aether through which a ray is > traveling. > > glird I see a clear delineation between the object and the aether. There are theories which tie the two together and there are no 'empty voids' between the aether and the object, but I see it much more conceptually easy to understand and intuitive to separate the object from the aether when discussing things. For example, the C-60 molecule in the double slit experiment. The C-60 molecule is always detected entering and exiting a single slit in the double slit experiment because it always enters and exits a single slit. But the C-60 molecule is 'connected' to the aether which is the wave which enters and exits both slits. I see it easier to discuss light bending around the Sun as the displaced aether caused by the Sun causing the light to bend. Not the aether composing the Sun causing the light to bend. Light travels through the Earth's atmosphere. The light is traveling through the aether associated with the Earth's atmosphere. Where does the Earth's atmosphere end and there being what we would consider to be 'just aether'? I don't know. But I still see it as the light being bent by the aether displaced by the Sun, not the displaced aether composing the Sun even though the Sun and the displaced aether are connected. The Earth exists in the Sun's entrained aether. Does this entrained aether still compose the Sun? I find that confusing.
From: mpc755 on 17 Oct 2009 16:51 On Oct 17, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 17, 11:47 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote: > > > ><A light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether. > > > > Given that "the aether' (or "ether") denotes the matter filling a > > given volume of space, then Yes. BUT!! Only if we measure speed in > > quantity of matter traversed per unit time, i.e. density/sec. If we > > measure speed in cm/sec, then c holds good only if the density is as > > low as it is in a vacuum. > > Correct. When light travels through water, it is still propagating > through the aether which exists in the water. > > > < And that includes the bending of light around massive objects.> > > In terms of c = densa/sec, Yes. > > In terms of c = ft/sec, No. > > > < Light travels relative to the aether displaced by massive objects. > > > > Not so. Light waves travel relative to the ether COMPOSING massive > > objects if any are part of the local aether through which a ray is > > traveling. > > > glird > > I see a clear delineation between the object and the aether. There are > theories which tie the two together and there are no 'empty voids' > between the aether and the object, but I see it much more conceptually > easy to understand and intuitive to separate the object from the > aether when discussing things. > > For example, the C-60 molecule in the double slit experiment. The C-60 > molecule is always detected entering and exiting a single slit in the > double slit experiment because it always enters and exits a single > slit. But the C-60 molecule is 'connected' to the aether which is the > wave which enters and exits both slits. > > I see it easier to discuss light bending around the Sun as the > displaced aether caused by the Sun causing the light to bend. Not the > aether composing the Sun causing the light to bend. > > Light travels through the Earth's atmosphere. The light is traveling > through the aether associated with the Earth's atmosphere. Where does > the Earth's atmosphere end and there being what we would consider to > be 'just aether'? I don't know. > > But I still see it as the light being bent by the aether displaced by > the Sun, not the displaced aether composing the Sun even though the > Sun and the displaced aether are connected. > > The Earth exists in the Sun's entrained aether. Does this entrained > aether still compose the Sun? I find that confusing. Objects are the matter they contain.
From: YBM on 17 Oct 2009 22:24 mpc755 a �crit : > On Oct 17, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... >>> On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote: .... > Objects are the matter they contain. Talking to yourself again? It's sad. You have a problem, it has nothing to to with physics. Isn't there any newsgroup about mental illness where you could post?
From: mpc755 on 18 Oct 2009 11:11
On Oct 17, 10:24 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > mpc755 a écrit : > > > On Oct 17, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ... > >>> On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote: > ... > > Objects are the matter they contain. > > Talking to yourself again? > > It's sad. You have a problem, it has nothing to to with > physics. > > Isn't there any newsgroup about mental illness where you > could post? In this thread I am talking to another poster. If this is the best you can offer yourself in your life on a Saturday night, you might want to consider changing something. How about joining a club? |