Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 11:57 On Oct 24, 11:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Oct 24, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by > >> the Earth. > > > Small problem. No medium that is frictionless can be entrained. > > Also, an entrained layer about the Earth would display > aberration effects as the medium becomes less "entrained" > with height. No such aberration is seen. There is resistance, but there is no friction. There is no loss of energy, or the loss is negligible, when a particle or object interacts with the aether. If you fired a bullet from Florida at almost 'c' into a hurricane that was headed for Louisiana, the effects of the hurricane's winds on the bullet would be negligible.
From: Greg Neill on 24 Oct 2009 12:02 mpc755 wrote: > On Oct 24, 11:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: >> PD wrote: >>> On Oct 24, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by >>>> the Earth. >> >>> Small problem. No medium that is frictionless can be entrained. >> >> Also, an entrained layer about the Earth would display >> aberration effects as the medium becomes less "entrained" >> with height. No such aberration is seen. > > There is resistance, but there is no friction. There is no loss of > energy, or the loss is negligible, when a particle or object interacts > with the aether. > > If you fired a bullet from Florida at almost 'c' into a hurricane that > was headed for Louisiana, the effects of the hurricane's winds on the > bullet would be negligible. Explain resistance without friction. What is your definition of resistance? If your light 'bullet' does not interact with the medium, what is the point of your aether? Either light is a wave motion carried by an aether or it is not. Make up your mind; you can't have it both ways.
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 12:19 On Oct 24, 12:02 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Oct 24, 11:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > >> PD wrote: > >>> On Oct 24, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by > >>>> the Earth. > > >>> Small problem. No medium that is frictionless can be entrained. > > >> Also, an entrained layer about the Earth would display > >> aberration effects as the medium becomes less "entrained" > >> with height. No such aberration is seen. > > > There is resistance, but there is no friction. There is no loss of > > energy, or the loss is negligible, when a particle or object interacts > > with the aether. > > > If you fired a bullet from Florida at almost 'c' into a hurricane that > > was headed for Louisiana, the effects of the hurricane's winds on the > > bullet would be negligible. > > Explain resistance without friction. What is your definition > of resistance? > > If your light 'bullet' does not interact with the medium, > what is the point of your aether? Either light is a > wave motion carried by an aether or it is not. Make up > your mind; you can't have it both ways. Friction is a loss of energy. Resistance is the ability of the Earth to displace the aether. The Earth requires energy to displace the aether, but the aether returns the energy to the Earth as it 'pushes back'. There is no loss of momentum of the Earth in its interaction with the aether. The bullet is interacting with the medium but simply because the aether becomes less entrained as you move further away from the Earth doesn't mean you can detect that on the Earth. You do see the effects of the displaced aether when light from distant stars is 'bent' by the Sun. If you are in the eye of a hurricane and detect the light 'bullet', even if trajectory of the light 'bullet' is altered slightly by the winds of the hurricane, how do you detect that slight change? The point I am trying to make is light is effected by the aether it is propagating through. Take for instance the light from binary stars. The light is effected by the entrained aether of the star when it is emitted but is then effected by the entrained aether surrounding both stars. Think of it as a whirlpool of water within a whirlpool of water analogy. The ripple created by a pebble dropped into the inner whirlpool will be under the influence of the water in the inner whirlpool. Once the ripple moves into the outer whirlpool it will be under the influence of the water in the outer whirlpool.
From: Greg Neill on 24 Oct 2009 13:13 mpc755 wrote: > On Oct 24, 12:02 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: >> mpc755 wrote: >>> On Oct 24, 11:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: >>>> PD wrote: >>>>> On Oct 24, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by >>>>>> the Earth. >> >>>>> Small problem. No medium that is frictionless can be entrained. >> >>>> Also, an entrained layer about the Earth would display >>>> aberration effects as the medium becomes less "entrained" >>>> with height. No such aberration is seen. >> >>> There is resistance, but there is no friction. There is no loss of >>> energy, or the loss is negligible, when a particle or object interacts >>> with the aether. >> >>> If you fired a bullet from Florida at almost 'c' into a hurricane that >>> was headed for Louisiana, the effects of the hurricane's winds on the >>> bullet would be negligible. >> >> Explain resistance without friction. What is your definition >> of resistance? >> >> If your light 'bullet' does not interact with the medium, >> what is the point of your aether? Either light is a >> wave motion carried by an aether or it is not. Make up >> your mind; you can't have it both ways. > > Friction is a loss of energy. Resistance is the ability of the Earth > to displace the aether. The Earth requires energy to displace the > aether, but the aether returns the energy to the Earth as it 'pushes > back'. > > There is no loss of momentum of the Earth in its interaction with the > aether. > > The bullet is interacting with the medium but simply because the > aether becomes less entrained as you move further away from the Earth > doesn't mean you can detect that on the Earth. You do see the effects > of the displaced aether when light from distant stars is 'bent' by the > Sun. Nonsense. The difference is relative velocity between entrained and unentrained would be equal to (at least) the orbital speed of the Earth, and would occur over a relatively short distance (on the order of an Earth radius). This would produce obvious aberration effects. As for the Sun, if it's taken to be essentially at rest in the center of the solar system then there could be no aberration or deflection effect. If it's taken to be in motion about the center of the galaxy then it the aberration should be nonuniform -- stretched out along the diection of motion. Neither of these situations are observed. > > If you are in the eye of a hurricane and detect the light 'bullet', > even if trajectory of the light 'bullet' is altered slightly by the > winds of the hurricane, how do you detect that slight change? That's what interferometers do -- they measure minute path length differences via phase shifts. > > The point I am trying to make is light is effected by the aether it is > propagating through. Take for instance the light from binary stars. > The light is effected by the entrained aether of the star when it is > emitted but is then effected by the entrained aether surrounding both > stars. Think of it as a whirlpool of water within a whirlpool of water > analogy. The ripple created by a pebble dropped into the inner > whirlpool will be under the influence of the water in the inner > whirlpool. Once the ripple moves into the outer whirlpool it will be > under the influence of the water in the outer whirlpool. You can't just pick and choose when the aether effects light and when it doesn't in order to avoid the obvious contradictions and non-observed effects.
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 14:04
On Oct 24, 1:13 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Oct 24, 12:02 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > >> mpc755 wrote: > >>> On Oct 24, 11:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > >>>> PD wrote: > >>>>> On Oct 24, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by > >>>>>> the Earth. > > >>>>> Small problem. No medium that is frictionless can be entrained. > > >>>> Also, an entrained layer about the Earth would display > >>>> aberration effects as the medium becomes less "entrained" > >>>> with height. No such aberration is seen. > > >>> There is resistance, but there is no friction. There is no loss of > >>> energy, or the loss is negligible, when a particle or object interacts > >>> with the aether. > > >>> If you fired a bullet from Florida at almost 'c' into a hurricane that > >>> was headed for Louisiana, the effects of the hurricane's winds on the > >>> bullet would be negligible. > > >> Explain resistance without friction. What is your definition > >> of resistance? > > >> If your light 'bullet' does not interact with the medium, > >> what is the point of your aether? Either light is a > >> wave motion carried by an aether or it is not. Make up > >> your mind; you can't have it both ways. > > > Friction is a loss of energy. Resistance is the ability of the Earth > > to displace the aether. The Earth requires energy to displace the > > aether, but the aether returns the energy to the Earth as it 'pushes > > back'. > > > There is no loss of momentum of the Earth in its interaction with the > > aether. > > > The bullet is interacting with the medium but simply because the > > aether becomes less entrained as you move further away from the Earth > > doesn't mean you can detect that on the Earth. You do see the effects > > of the displaced aether when light from distant stars is 'bent' by the > > Sun. > > Nonsense. The difference is relative velocity between > entrained and unentrained would be equal to (at least) > the orbital speed of the Earth, and would occur over a > relatively short distance (on the order of an Earth radius). > > This would produce obvious aberration effects. > Nonsense. The light 'bullet' cuts through the hurricane winds. How do you detect aberration effects on the light 'bullet' if you are in the eye of the hurricane? > As for the Sun, if it's taken to be essentially at rest > in the center of the solar system then there could be > no aberration or deflection effect. If it's taken to > be in motion about the center of the galaxy then it the > aberration should be nonuniform -- stretched out along > the diection of motion. Neither of these situations are > observed. > The Sun entrains the aether to Uranus. The Pioneer effect is due to the Pioneer satellites 'falling out of' the Sun's entrained aether. The effect of light waves within the Sun's entrained aether is going to be uniform and not stretched. > > > > If you are in the eye of a hurricane and detect the light 'bullet', > > even if trajectory of the light 'bullet' is altered slightly by the > > winds of the hurricane, how do you detect that slight change? > > That's what interferometers do -- they measure minute path > length differences via phase shifts. > Yes. And the Miller aether experiments and the MM experiments returned a non-zero result which coincides with an entrained aether. > > > > The point I am trying to make is light is effected by the aether it is > > propagating through. Take for instance the light from binary stars. > > The light is effected by the entrained aether of the star when it is > > emitted but is then effected by the entrained aether surrounding both > > stars. Think of it as a whirlpool of water within a whirlpool of water > > analogy. The ripple created by a pebble dropped into the inner > > whirlpool will be under the influence of the water in the inner > > whirlpool. Once the ripple moves into the outer whirlpool it will be > > under the influence of the water in the outer whirlpool. > > You can't just pick and choose when the aether effects light > and when it doesn't in order to avoid the obvious contradictions > and non-observed effects. I'm not. You are making assumptions in order to dismiss the aether effects of light. You are doing nothing more than pouring water into a telescope to dismiss aether entrainment because you choose to assume aether 'sticks' to water and not to air. |