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 23 Oct 2009 11:52 On Oct 13, 7:58 pm, PD wrote: > > < Waves do not come from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the shore. This is experimentally confirmed. It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from where they were generated, not from where the source goes. > Please provide the name of any experiment that confirms that photons EXIST between the origin of a light wave and its arrival at a reactive target. (If you can't, then your conclusion is not based on experimental evidence.)
From: kenseto on 23 Oct 2009 11:53 On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Oct 17, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > < 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 suggest that you read the following link for a different interpretation of the double slit experiment: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf Ken Seto > > A molecule is made of matter. It is always embedded in a field filled > with the same kind of matter. The material is always continuous, > whether or not molecules are present in it. The continuity-aspect of > a given volume of matter is what "the aether" (i.e. "ether") denotes. > > >< I find 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. > > > Change the word "aether" to "matter" and I might agree. (See below > for why I said "might".)) > > > 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. > > > The Earth - as is an atom and a molecule, etc - is a "matter unit", > i.e. a body made of and owning a portion of matter. The atmosphere > travels with and is part of that unit. > If you want to restrict the word "aether" to non-particulate matter > even though it is the same kind of substance as that composing > particles, then -- as explained in What it all is and Why' etc -- the > Earth "ends" at the place where there is a shock-wave in the aether > statistically at rest with the Sun. > > > < 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 Sun is a matter-unit too. Earth is part of that parent unit, > even though it moves about within the solar material, just as a swan > or a piece of paper does on Earth, displacing the matter through which > it moves. Wrt light being bent, there are a series of shell layers > surrounding EVERY matter-unit, regardless of its size. Each such layer > is a density gradient. if you MAP that grad d in terms of length and > rates of an event at a place in it, i.e. in terms of co-ordinates > x,y,z of space and t of time, you'd have a "space-time continuum" > whose "curvature" maps the grad d itself. Anything at all, including > a wave of light, that traversed such a gradient would be refracted and/ > or diffracted accordingly, even if the displaced matter was NOT part > of a matter-unit moving through it. > > > < The Earth exists in the Sun's entrained aether [material]. Does this entrained aether [MATTER] still compose the Sun? [YES.] I find that confusing. > > > Check it out in the MS I sent you. :-)) > > glird
From: kenseto on 23 Oct 2009 12:01 On Oct 22, 5:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:bb0bdf90-c4e8-4e3b-b8d9-6aa4d7f241fe(a)l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 4:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 19, 12:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Oct 17, 4:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > 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. > > >> > And the 'matter' does not include the 'aether' which exists in and > >> > around the object. > > >> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert > >> Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > >> "Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish > >> the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to > >> it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively > >> to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the > >> theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system > >> of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest > >> relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical > >> equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not > >> indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." > > >> Such is the reason why Einstein incorrectly concluded the notion of > >> motion cannot be applied to the aether. > > >> Einstein failed to realize the aether can be at rest relative to K and > >> at rest relative to K'. > > > He didn't have to do that the speed of light is isotropic in all > > inertial framesand that's why he concluded that the notion of motion > > cannot applied to the aether. > > Yeup. If there was an aether he concluded that you could not apply the > notion of motion to it .. indeed, all mechanical properties don't apply to > aether. That means you can't say that the aether is in motion wrt an > object, or at rest wrt an object. It seems to me that an aether with no > mechanical properties cannot be the medium for light to 'wave', as it was > thought to be. And that LET, that says it is motion wrt the aether that > causes compression of all objects and slowing of all processes, becomes moot > if there is no motion wrt the aether. The observer is doing the moving....if he is at equal distance from the strikes then he will see the flashes to be simultaneous. > > > However, he failed to realize that the > > speed of light on earth is isotropic only in the same gravitational > > potential. > > Have you never heard of GR? Sure I have heard of GR....have you? Ken Seto > > > > > Verticlly the speed of light is anisotropic. I have > > designed experiments to detect absolute motion in the vertical > > direction in the following link: > >http://www.geocities.com.kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 23 Oct 2009 12:15 On Oct 23, 11:49 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 22, 11:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 22, 10:25 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 21, 4:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 19, 12:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 17, 4:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > And the 'matter' does not include the 'aether' which exists in and > > > > > around the object. > > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > "Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish > > > > the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to > > > > it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively > > > > to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the > > > > theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system > > > > of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest > > > > relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical > > > > equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not > > > > indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." > > > > > Such is the reason why Einstein incorrectly concluded the notion of > > > > motion cannot be applied to the aether. > > > > > Einstein failed to realize the aether can be at rest relative to K and > > > > at rest relative to K'. > > > > He didn't have to do that the speed of light is isotropic in all > > > inertial framesand > > > That is only true if the frames "are physically equivalent to it in > > all respects", which is impossible if A and A' are co-located. > > > If A and A' are not co-located and the aether is at rest relative to > > the embankment and at rest relative to the train, then you have > > Simultaneity of Relativity: > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > It's either one or the other. Either A and A' are co-located and B and > > B' are co-located in which case it is physically impossible for the > > frames to be inertial frames of reference because the aether cannot be > > at rest relative to both, or A and A' are not co-located and B and B' > > are not co-located. > > > It is physically impossible in nature for A and A' to be co-located > > and for B and B' to be co-located and for the train frame of reference > > and the embankment frame of reference to be physically equivalent in > > all respects. > > The aether is always at rest....A/A' and B/B' are two strikes of > lightning. M and M' are at different equal distances from the strikes > and the speed of light is isotropic in both frames and therefore M and > M' will see the strikes to be simultaneous but at different times > (because they are at different equal distances from the strikes. > > Ken Seto > If A/A' is a single point in three dimensional space where a single lightning strike occurs and B/B' is a single point in three dimensional space where a single lightning strike occurs, and the embankment and the train are moving relative to one another, it is physically impossible for the aether to be at rest relative to both. > > > > > that's why he concluded that the notion of motion > > > cannot applied to the aether. However, he failed to realize that the > > > speed of light on earth is isotropic only in the same gravitational > > > potential. Verticlly the speed of light is anisotropic. I have > > > designed experiments to detect absolute motion in the vertical > > > direction in the following link:http://www.geocities.com.kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > > > Ken Seto > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 23 Oct 2009 12:22
On Oct 23, 11:52 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 7:58 pm, PD wrote: > > > < Waves do not come from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the shore. > > This is experimentally confirmed. > It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from > where they were generated, not from where the source goes. > > > Please provide the name of any experiment that > confirms that photons EXIST between the origin of a light wave and its > arrival at a reactive target. (If you can't, then your conclusion is > not based on experimental evidence.) If the boat were stationary relative to the water and you dropped the anchor off of the side of the boat, the wave generated by the anchor would propagate outward in all directions relative to where the boat *is*. The wave the anchor makes in the water propagates outward relative to the water. Light waves travel at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. |