Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: mpc755 on 23 Oct 2009 23:33 On Oct 23, 8:51 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(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. What experiment shows light waves do not travel at 'c' relative to the aether?
From: Peter Webb on 24 Oct 2009 06:13 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:051fc5d4-4786-4b2f-b1f3-d9e5f0210fa1(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Oct 23, 8:51 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(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. What experiment shows light waves do not travel at 'c' relative to the aether? __________________________________ Aether doesn't exist, at least in the sense of defining a common frame of reference. The experiments - of which Michelson Morley is just the first of many, using different experimental protocols - showed that light travels in a vacuum at a constant speed of c relative to the frame of the observer. I might also add that this is a direct consequence of the equations that give rise to photons - Maxwell's equations - which predicted theoretically that this would be the case long before Relativity. Indeed, it was this knowledge which partially motivated the MM experiment. In SR, an experiment conducted in one inertial frame of reference will always produce the same result if conducted in a different inertial frame of reference. This is a reassuring result that conforms with our experience - the fact that the earth is hurtling around the galaxy at some huge speed doesn't change how radio transmitters operate on earth. If there was one special frame of reference (ie that of the ether) which could be experimentally determined as being different to the others, then by definition this would not be the case. As no possible experiment can show the ether exists, as far as science is concerned it doesn't. I think a lot of beginner's misunderstanding of this derives from the analogy between water and sound waves and electro-magnetic waves. With water and sound waves, what you say is true. However, EM waves are mathematically very different - there are two components, the electric vector and the magnetic vector, linked by equations, whereas water waves and sound waves are far simpler equations with only one component (wave height and air pressure, respectively). Changing the frame of reference in the equations for water and sound waves produces a Galilean transform, changing the frame of reference in Maxwell's equations produces the Lorentz transform. Even without SR, it would be almost impossible to argue that the speed of light was constant relative to the ether rather than to the measurement frame, because Maxwell's equations quite clearly say that its not. By the late 19th century Maxwell's equations were experimentally extremely well verified, as they are used in virtually all parts of electricity generation and distribution, radio, and elsewhere. Indeed, if you don't believe that c is constant to the frame of reference of the observer, you have to explain what is wrong with Maxwell's equations, or the easy mathematics which uses them to prove the speed is constant relative to the observer's frame. And our technological society is pretty much built on Maxwell's equations.
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 10:23 On Oct 24, 6:13 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:051fc5d4-4786-4b2f-b1f3-d9e5f0210fa1(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 23, 8:51 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(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. > > What experiment shows light waves do not travel at 'c' relative to the > aether? > > __________________________________ > Aether doesn't exist, at least in the sense of defining a common frame of > reference. The experiments - of which Michelson Morley is just the first of > many, using different experimental protocols - showed that light travels in > a vacuum at a constant speed of c relative to the frame of the observer. I > might also add that this is a direct consequence of the equations that give > rise to photons - Maxwell's equations - which predicted theoretically that > this would be the case long before Relativity. Indeed, it was this knowledge > which partially motivated the MM experiment. > > In SR, an experiment conducted in one inertial frame of reference will > always produce the same result if conducted in a different inertial frame of > reference. This is a reassuring result that conforms with our experience - > the fact that the earth is hurtling around the galaxy at some huge speed > doesn't change how radio transmitters operate on earth. If there was one > special frame of reference (ie that of the ether) which could be > experimentally determined as being different to the others, then by > definition this would not be the case. As no possible experiment can show > the ether exists, as far as science is concerned it doesn't. > > I think a lot of beginner's misunderstanding of this derives from the > analogy between water and sound waves and electro-magnetic waves. With > water and sound waves, what you say is true. However, EM waves are > mathematically very different - there are two components, the electric > vector and the magnetic vector, linked by equations, whereas water waves and > sound waves are far simpler equations with only one component (wave height > and air pressure, respectively). Changing the frame of reference in the > equations for water and sound waves produces a Galilean transform, changing > the frame of reference in Maxwell's equations produces the Lorentz > transform. > > Even without SR, it would be almost impossible to argue that the speed of > light was constant relative to the ether rather than to the measurement > frame, because Maxwell's equations quite clearly say that its not. By the > late 19th century Maxwell's equations were experimentally extremely well > verified, as they are used in virtually all parts of electricity generation > and distribution, radio, and elsewhere. > > Indeed, if you don't believe that c is constant to the frame of reference of > the observer, you have to explain what is wrong with Maxwell's equations, or > the easy mathematics which uses them to prove the speed is constant relative > to the observer's frame. And our technological society is pretty much built > on Maxwell's equations. The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by the Earth. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Most everything Maxwell did was based off of the notion of a 'displacement current'. What is displaced by the current? The aether. If you take Einstein's concept of the aether being connected with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places and Maxwell's concept of a displacement current, you have Aether Displacement. The aether is displaced by the objects which exist in it. And there is plenty of evidence of the aether. Any double slit experiment is evidence of the aether, specifically any double slit experiment not performed with photons or electrons because once past photons and electrons particles are generally considered to be particles which exist as standalone entities. If you perform the double slit experiment with a particle and you place detectors at the entrances or the exits to the slits, the particle is always detected entering or exiting a single slit. The reason for this, in Aether Displacement, is due to the fact the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. To say the particle enters and exits both slits when you do not look for it is not supported by the experimental evidence. The act of detecting the particle causes the aether displacement wave to be turned into chop and there is no interference. No detectors and the aether displacement wave exits both slits, creating interference which alters the direction the particle travels. In Aether Displacement, the definition of a particle is a standalone entity which travels a single path in the double slit experiment and the definition of a wave is a displacement in the aether which travels available paths. The photon 'particle' travels a single path, but the photon aether wave travels a single path. 'Particle' is in quotes because a photon may is a disturbance in the aether where its ability to collapse and be detected as a particle travels a single path but the disturbance in the aether is still a wave which travels available paths. 'Delayed choice quantum eraser' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment If you look at the image to the right you will see both red and blue lines together before detectors D1 and D2. Since the photon aether displacement wave is traveling available paths, the photon aether displacement wave is traveling both the red and blue paths creating interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. With Aether Displacement, nothing is erased, nothing is delayed, all that is occurring is the aether displacement wave travels available paths and the particle travels a single path. In Aether Displacement, when anything is ever 'erased' in these types of experiments, all that is occurring is the available paths are being combined which allows the aether displacement waves to physically travel the available paths creating interference. Double slit, quantum eraser, and delayed choice experiments are evidence of aether.
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 10:34 On Oct 24, 6:13 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:051fc5d4-4786-4b2f-b1f3-d9e5f0210fa1(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 23, 8:51 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(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. > > What experiment shows light waves do not travel at 'c' relative to the > aether? > > __________________________________ > Aether doesn't exist, at least in the sense of defining a common frame of > reference. The experiments - of which Michelson Morley is just the first of > many, using different experimental protocols - showed that light travels in > a vacuum at a constant speed of c relative to the frame of the observer. I > might also add that this is a direct consequence of the equations that give > rise to photons - Maxwell's equations - which predicted theoretically that > this would be the case long before Relativity. Indeed, it was this knowledge > which partially motivated the MM experiment. > > In SR, an experiment conducted in one inertial frame of reference will > always produce the same result if conducted in a different inertial frame of > reference. This is a reassuring result that conforms with our experience - > the fact that the earth is hurtling around the galaxy at some huge speed > doesn't change how radio transmitters operate on earth. If there was one > special frame of reference (ie that of the ether) which could be > experimentally determined as being different to the others, then by > definition this would not be the case. As no possible experiment can show > the ether exists, as far as science is concerned it doesn't. > > I think a lot of beginner's misunderstanding of this derives from the > analogy between water and sound waves and electro-magnetic waves. With > water and sound waves, what you say is true. However, EM waves are > mathematically very different - there are two components, the electric > vector and the magnetic vector, linked by equations, whereas water waves and > sound waves are far simpler equations with only one component (wave height > and air pressure, respectively). Changing the frame of reference in the > equations for water and sound waves produces a Galilean transform, changing > the frame of reference in Maxwell's equations produces the Lorentz > transform. > > Even without SR, it would be almost impossible to argue that the speed of > light was constant relative to the ether rather than to the measurement > frame, because Maxwell's equations quite clearly say that its not. By the > late 19th century Maxwell's equations were experimentally extremely well > verified, as they are used in virtually all parts of electricity generation > and distribution, radio, and elsewhere. > > Indeed, if you don't believe that c is constant to the frame of reference of > the observer, you have to explain what is wrong with Maxwell's equations, or > the easy mathematics which uses them to prove the speed is constant relative > to the observer's frame. And our technological society is pretty much built > on Maxwell's equations. The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by the Earth. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Most everything Maxwell did was based off of the notion of a 'displacement current'. What is displaced by the current? The aether. If you take Einstein's concept of the state of the aether is at every place determined by the connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places and Maxwell's concept of a displacement current, you have Aether Displacement. The aether is displaced by the objects which exist in it. And there is plenty of evidence of the aether. Any double slit experiment is evidence of the aether. If you perform the double slit experiment with a particle and you place detectors at the entrances or the exits to the slits, the particle is always detected entering or exiting a single slit. The reason for this, in Aether Displacement, is due to the fact the particle ALWAYS enters and exits a single slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. To say the particle enters and exits both slits when you do not look for it is not supported by the experimental evidence. The act of detecting the particle causes the aether displacement wave to be turned into chop and there is no interference. No detectors and the aether displacement wave exits both slits, creating interference which alters the direction the particle travels. In Aether Displacement, the definition of a particle is a standalone entity which travels a single path in the double slit experiment and the definition of a wave is a displacement in the aether which travels available paths. The photon 'particle' travels a single path, but the photon aether wave travels available paths. 'Particle' is in quotes because a photon may be a disturbance in the aether where its ability to collapse and be detected as a particle travels a single path but the disturbance in the aether is still a wave which travels available paths. 'Delayed choice quantum eraser' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment If you look at the image to the right you will see both red and blue lines together before detectors D1 and D2. Since the photon aether displacement wave is traveling available paths, the photon aether displacement wave is traveling both the red and blue paths creating interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. With Aether Displacement, nothing is erased, nothing is delayed. The aether displacement wave travels available paths and the particle travels a single path. In Aether Displacement, when anything is ever 'erased' in these types of experiments, all that is occurring is the available paths are being combined which allows the aether displacement waves to physically travel the available paths creating interference. Double slit, quantum eraser, and delayed choice experiments are evidence of aether.
From: kenseto on 24 Oct 2009 11:18
On Oct 23, 11:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. In didn't say that the aether is at rest in all inertial frames. I said that all objects are in a state of absolute motion in the aether. > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |