Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: Peter Webb on 23 Oct 2009 20:51 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:9f8107ce-c29d-406d-8407-393deef37131(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Oct 23, 11:52 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 7:58 pm, PD wrote: > > > < Waves do not come from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the > > shore. > > This is experimentally confirmed. > It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from > where they were generated, not from where the source goes. > > > Please provide the name of any experiment that > confirms that photons EXIST between the origin of a light wave and its > arrival at a reactive target. (If you can't, then your conclusion is > not based on experimental evidence.) If the boat were stationary relative to the water and you dropped the anchor off of the side of the boat, the wave generated by the anchor would propagate outward in all directions relative to where the boat *is*. The wave the anchor makes in the water propagates outward relative to the water. Light waves travel at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. _______________________________ Unfortunately not confirmed experimentally, and not predicted by the equations of EM theory (ie Maxwell's equations). I guess the analogy between light waves and EM radiation can only be taken so far.
From: Inertial on 23 Oct 2009 21:12 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:415475c6-33f5-4bec-8b6d-a6fe04ca8e19(a)e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > 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. In the gedanken, they are actually at the same equal distances when the lightning strikes. But you can use different equal distances if you like (eg by having the ground observer a distance from the tracks horizontally, and the train observer some different distance from the tracks vertically) > The speed > of light is isotropic in both frame And so you get RoS > and therefore they will each sees > the strikes to be simultaneous at different times. Nope. AS it is no possible for the light to arrive simultaneously at both M and M', as M' and M have moved apart in a direction parallel to the vector between the strikes. Only one (at most) of them can still be equidistant from the light source. X......M..M'..X or X...M..M'.....X Depending on whether the lightning was simultaneous according to M or M' > 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. Except the light beams have to travel different distances to get to M' .. or leave at different times .. depending on your frame of reference. > The position of M' wrt M is irrelevant. Don't be stupid .. of course it is , as the distance determines the time taken No matter how many times you repeat your nonsense .. it is still nonsense. It is physically impossible for the light to arrive at both M and M' at the same time. See my description below >> 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.
From: Inertial on 23 Oct 2009 21:16 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:ab7d45dd-a673-403f-a8be-3bfe19ce0a86(a)g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > 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.... I didn't say anything about on earth. Go out into space, put a lab in uniform motion. If an object is in uniform motion, its absolute motion cannot vary. So measure its abaolute motion and then adjust the velocity of the lab to suit > so you need to test for its state of absolute > motion every time you want to make prediction??? You're running scared because you know your idea of no absolute rest is nonsense, but varying absolute motion is nonsense. If different objects can have different absolute motion, there must be a minimum possible absolute motion. Why is this not zero? What is it if it is not zero? Why can you not always change the motion to a lower absolute motion when the absolute motion is nonzero? Have you even really thought about your theory at ALLLLL?
From: Inertial on 23 Oct 2009 21:24 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:ca70b01f-c822-4ee8-8a56-24a26c91c184(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > I didn't say that the observer is at rest in the aether. LET assumes > that there is an aether and it uses the aether frame to do > calculations. Yes .. or you can use any frame .. its the same math between any frame two frames of reference in LET > SR assumes that all frames are equivalent, Yes > including the > aether frame SR doesn't have one .. but if there is such a thing as an aether, and you can apply the concept of motion to it, then it has a frame, and it is equivalent to any other frame as far as SR is concerned. > so it uses the aether frame to do calculations. No .. it doesn't. It uses whatever frame the observer is in, and has the LT to allow you to convert measurements to how they would be measured in some other frame > That's > why SR and LET have the same math Yes, they do .. but that is not why > and that's why both the LET and SR > observers assert that all all clock moving wrt them are running slow > and all rulers moving wrt them are contracted. Yeup. Only difference between SR and LET is that LET says the rulers physically compress when moving in the aether (their physical length changes) and processes physically slow down when moving in the aether (their physical rate of ticking changes) (that is the same as your theory,m except you leave half of it out). Both SR and LET says what you will measure in your frame is that all other rulers are shorter and all other processes are slower than in their own frames. In LET that is even the case for when your frame is moving faster in the aether than the other frame, and so even though your rulers are actually physically shorter and your clocks are physically running slower than in the other frame, you will still measure the length of rulers as shorter in the other frame etc.
From: mpc755 on 23 Oct 2009 23:32
On Oct 23, 8:32 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 23, 6:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I didn't say that the observer is at rest in the aether. LET assumes > that there is an aether and it uses the aether frame to do > calculations. SR assumes that all frames are equivalent, including the > aether frame so it uses the aether frame to do calculations. That's > why SR and LET have the same math and that's why both the LET and SR > observers assert that all all clock moving wrt them are running slow > and all rulers moving wrt them are contracted. > > Ken Seto > I didn't say you said the observer is at rest in the aether. I said you said no observer is at rest in the aether. No observer at rest in the aether but the aether being at rest in all frames of reference is physically impossible. > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |