Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: Inertial on 22 Oct 2009 17:20 "kenseto" <kenseto(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. > 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? > 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
From: glird on 22 Oct 2009 17:26 On Oct 22, 2:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > < Everything is much easier to discuss and conceptually understand if we stick to light waves propagate through aether, not matter. > If you want to UNDErSTAND what you are discussing, then aether IS matter! In STR, light waves propagate through "empty space"; which is impossible. In reality, they are propagated by the compressible matter that fills space and is the substance all particles are made of. In its continuous non-particulate form it is called "dark matter" because it is invisible. Since its presence increases the density of any local field, and since a gravitational field is a density gradient, it is responsible for the fact that galactic g-fields are much stronger than that due to visible units made of the same kind of matter; but which reflect light due to having a surface, thus are not called "dark matter". glird
From: mpc755 on 22 Oct 2009 17:44 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 He could not apply the notion of motion to it because it would undermine his concept of Relativity of Simultaneity and his train thought experiment: "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." Einstein never figured out how to correlate his Relativity of Simultaneity with an ether which was at rest relative to K and not at rest relative to K', so he punted on the issue. "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles." If the shape of space occupied by the water varies in time, is the water moving? What Einstein failed to realize is a light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of reference.
From: mpc755 on 22 Oct 2009 17:54 On Oct 22, 5:26 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Oct 22, 2:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > < Everything is much easier to discuss and conceptually understand if > we stick to light waves propagate through aether, not matter. > > > If you want to UNDErSTAND what you are discussing, then aether IS > matter! > In STR, light waves propagate through "empty space"; which is > impossible. In reality, they are propagated by the compressible matter > that fills space and is the substance all particles are made of. > In its continuous non-particulate form it is called "dark matter" > because it is invisible. Since its presence increases the density of > any local field, and since a gravitational field is a density > gradient, it is responsible for the fact that galactic g-fields are > much stronger than that due to visible units made of the same kind of > matter; but which reflect light due to having a surface, thus are not > called "dark matter". > > glird Where the non-aether matter associated with the Sun ends is where the Sun as an object ends. It has an entrained aether, but the entrained aether is not to be considered to be physically part of the Sun. Yes, aether is matter and matter is aether. However, it will be much easier to have a conversation if we decide light propagates through aether and not matter. Even the aether which exists in the Earth I do not consider to be part of the matter which consists as part of the Earth. The Earth as an object is the matter which consists as part of the Earth, not the aether which exists within the matter. In other words, when I conceptualize the Earth, I consider it to be the matter, not the aether which exists in the Earth. I consider the aether to be a singleton (even if it does consist of particles). If you have a sponge in a bucket of water, there is water throughout the sponge, but do we consider the water to physically be part of the sponge as an object? I don't. We can go back and forth on this if you want to, but my definitions are easier to comprehend and have conversations using.
From: PD on 22 Oct 2009 18:11
On Oct 22, 4:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > What Einstein failed to realize is a light wave travels at 'c' > relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. This is inconsistent with the results of Filippas and Fox. It doesn't have anything to do with "realizing" anything. It has to do with whether the predictions of an aether model match experiments designed to test those predictions. When they don't match, the aether model goes toe-up. |