Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: mpc755 on 22 Oct 2009 11:42 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. > That is not 100% accurate. The aether could be moving relative to both frames of reference as to make the frames physically equivalent in all respects. If that is the case, then the light from B will reach M' earlier than the light from B' in all frames of reference and the light from A' will reach M earlier than the light from A in all respects. In this scenario, the light will reach the Observers at M and M' continually for some period of time as the light waves interact with the moving aether. What is physically impossible is for A and A' to be co-located and for B and B' to be co-located and for the aether to be at rest relative to both the embankment and the train. > > 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 - > >
From: glird on 22 Oct 2009 12:37 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. > 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: glird on 22 Oct 2009 12:41 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. Right. It has to do with the nature of reality, which is a word physicists admittedly don't understand. > Isn't there any newsgroup about mental > illness where you could post? Try sci.physics.
From: mpc755 on 22 Oct 2009 14:20 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. > > > 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 Everything is much easier to discuss and conceptually understand if we stick to light waves propagate through aether, not matter.
From: mpc755 on 22 Oct 2009 14:23
On Oct 22, 11:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.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. > > That is not 100% accurate. The aether could be moving relative to both > frames of reference as to make the frames physically equivalent in all > respects. > > If that is the case, then the light from B will reach M' earlier than > the light from B' in all frames of reference and the light from A' > will reach M earlier than the light from A in all respects. > > In this scenario, the light will reach the Observers at M and M' > continually for some period of time as the light waves interact with > the moving aether. > > What is physically impossible is for A and A' to be co-located and for > B and B' to be co-located and for the aether to be at rest relative to > both the embankment and the train. > If A and A' are co-located and B and B' are co-located, then for the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference to be physically equivalent in all respects, the aether must be co-moving. > > > 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 - > > |