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: Inertial on 23 Oct 2009 17:26 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:2b4e0012-326a-4a40-8476-98d90210e35c(a)l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > 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 you like. Everyone is moving relative to someone else > if he is at equal distance from > the strikes then he will see the flashes to be simultaneous. Except the observer on the train doesn't see them at the same time. We know that because an observer on the tracks sees that the light arrives at the observer at different times and places. If you want to change the conditions of the gedanken around, and have the strikes simultaneous relative to the train, that's just fine. In that case the train observer will see the light arrive simultaneously. But the ground observer is now some distance behind him, so the light fronts (from the front and rear of the train) that just arrived simultaneously cannot also be reaching the ground observer at the same time. Indeed, the light front from the rear of the train had already reached the ground observer by the time it gets to the train observer because it has to go past the ground observer to get to the train observer). And the light front from the front of the train continues on past the train observer and eventually gets to the ground observer some time later. This is common sense and logic. Do you have either of those at your disposal? >> > 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? Doesn't sound like you understand it then, seeing you claim Einstein didn't realize that light speed if effected by differences gravitational potential
From: Inertial on 23 Oct 2009 17:34 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:64668497-890e-4fbb-84a1-3168eefe028b(a)l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 23, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > > No observer is at rest in the aether. Why not? You said you can do an experiment to detect absolute motion. SO you can tell how fast an in what direction the observer is moving wrt your 'aether'. So then change your observers absolute velocity by the negative of that amount and he is at rest. Simple. > However, the structure of the > aether is such that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial > frames. So you must get relativity of simultaneity, or else you get contradictions and multiple realities. And as your IRT is supposedly a super-set of SR, then you must also get the SR resulhs of RoS. > What this means is that light will take different times to > cover an equal physical distance in different frames (different states > of absolute motion). BUT for light to be isotropic (ie same in all directions) in some frame S, which has some non-zero absolute motion relative to the aether frame E, it means light is taking the SAME time to travel different absolute distances (distances in frame E). Which means it is not isotropic in E. It cannot be isotropic in more than one frame unless you have RoS. RoS is a natural consequence and requirement of your theory just as it is for SR. > The following link will illustrate what I mean. > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > Ken Seto
From: mpc755 on 23 Oct 2009 18:37 On Oct 23, 4:31 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 23, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No observer is at rest in the aether. However, the structure of the > aether is such that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial > frames. What this means is that light will take different times to > cover an equal physical distance in different frames (different states > of absolute motion). The following link will illustrate what I mean.http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > Ken Seto To say no observer is at rest in the aether, but the aether is such that it behaves as if it is at rest in all frames is the same thing as to believe in magic. Light propagates at 'c' relative to the aether. > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: kenseto on 23 Oct 2009 20:25 On Oct 23, 5:26 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:2b4e0012-326a-4a40-8476-98d90210e35c(a)l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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 you like. Everyone is moving relative to someone else > > > if he is at equal distance from > > the strikes then he will see the flashes to be simultaneous. > > Except the observer on the train doesn't see them at the same time. We know > that because an observer on the tracks sees that the light arrives at the > observer at different times and places. Yes both M and M' are at different equal distances from the strikes when they happened at the ends of the train simultaneously. The speed of light is isotropic in both frame and therefore they will each sees the strikes to be simultaneous at different times. M will see the strikes to be simutaneous at time L/c and M' will see the strikes to be simultaneous at tiime Gamma*L/c according to the track clock. The position of M' wrt M is irrelevant. > > If you want to change the conditions of the gedanken around, and have the > strikes simultaneous relative to the train, that's just fine. > > In that case the train observer will see the light arrive simultaneously. > > But the ground observer is now some distance behind him, so the light fronts > (from the front and rear of the train) that just arrived simultaneously > cannot also be reaching the ground observer at the same time. > > Indeed, the light front from the rear of the train had already reached the > ground observer by the time it gets to the train observer because it has to > go past the ground observer to get to the train observer). And the light > front from the front of the train continues on past the train observer and > eventually gets to the ground observer some time later. > > This is common sense and logic. Do you have either of those at your > disposal? > > >> > 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? > > Doesn't sound like you understand it then, seeing you claim Einstein didn't > realize that light speed if effected by differences gravitational potential- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 23 Oct 2009 20:27
On Oct 23, 5:34 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:64668497-890e-4fbb-84a1-3168eefe028b(a)l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > No observer is at rest in the aether. > > Why not? You said you can do an experiment to detect absolute motion. SO > you can tell how fast an in what direction the observer is moving wrt your > 'aether'. So then change your observers absolute velocity by the negative > of that amount and he is at rest. Simple. Sigh....not so simple the state of absolute motion of the earth changes continually....so you need to test for its state of absolute motion every time you want to make prediction??? > > > However, the structure of the > > aether is such that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial > > frames. > > So you must get relativity of simultaneity, or else you get contradictions > and multiple realities. And as your IRT is supposedly a super-set of SR, > then you must also get the SR resulhs of RoS. > > > What this means is that light will take different times to > > cover an equal physical distance in different frames (different states > > of absolute motion). > > BUT for light to be isotropic (ie same in all directions) in some frame S, > which has some non-zero absolute motion relative to the aether frame E, it > means light is taking the SAME time to travel different absolute distances > (distances in frame E). Which means it is not isotropic in E. It cannot be > isotropic in more than one frame unless you have RoS. RoS is a natural > consequence and requirement of your theory just as it is for SR. > > > > > The following link will illustrate what I mean. > >http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |