Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: mpc755 on 18 Oct 2009 13:27 On Oct 18, 1:25 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > mpc755 a crit : > > > > > On Oct 17, 10:24 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >> 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? > > > In this thread I am talking to another poster. > > No, you're not. He pointing out the absurdity of you "theory", > while you're not reading but singing your mantra to yourself. I do not think you are reading the thread carefully enough.
From: mpc755 on 19 Oct 2009 00:31 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.
From: mpc755 on 21 Oct 2009 16:43 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'.
From: mpc755 on 21 Oct 2009 20:33 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'. If the aether is at rest relative to the embankment, the light from the lightning strike travels from A and B to both M and M' and if the aether is at rest relative to the train, the light from the lightning strike travels from A' and B' to M and M'.
From: mpc755 on 21 Oct 2009 21:33
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'. If the aether is at rest relative to the embankment, the light from the lightning strike travels from A and B to both M and M' and the marks made at A' and B' are irrelevant. If the aether is at rest relative to the train the light from the lightning strike travels from A' and B' to M and M' and the marks made at A and B are irrelevant. |