Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: kenseto on 26 Oct 2009 09:48 On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > "absolutely stationary space". > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > entrained by the Earth. No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the ruler. Ken Seto > > The aether is 'stationary' in close proximity to a star in a binary > star system and then is 'stationary' relative to both stars as the > aether is entrained by both stars in the binary star system. > > > > > bingo!... royal flush? > > > > Every aether experiment ever performed has shown the aether is not > > > stationary.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 26 Oct 2009 09:58 On Oct 25, 8:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:038b59be-1c92-4b07-9e0c-892cc28482c1(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 4:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 24, 4:35 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >> > On Oct 24, 11:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Oct 24, 11:18 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >> > > > On Oct 23, 11:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > 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. > > >> > > If the object is at rest in its frame of reference and the aether is > >> > > at rest in the frame of reference, then the object is at rest in the > >> > > aether. > > >> > Sigh....no object is at rest in the aether. > > >> Sigh...if no object is at rest in the aether, then the aether is not > >> at rest in any frame of reference, which means the aether is in > >> relative motion to the two frames in Einstein's train thought > >> experiment, meaning the frames are not isotropic. > > > The aether is the only thing that is stationary > > In the frame of reference of the aether No the ether frame is the master preferred frame....the ether clock is the fastesrt running clock in the universe. > > > and all material > > objects are moving within it. > > Except those material objects that happen to not be moving in it. There is no object in the universe that is not moving in the aether. > It is > possible for two different objects to have the same amount of absolute > motion but in opposite directions. There is no opposite direction of absolute motion. >An object the remains halfway between > them would therefore has zero absolute motion. That's why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames. > > > Relative motion between two objects > > moving in the aether is the result of the vector difference of their > > absolute motion along the line joining them. > > And so you can have a zero absolute motion. No ....no pbject in the universe is in a state of absolute rest. > > > Isotropy of the speed of light as measured in any inertial frame is > > due to the structure of the aether. > > Which then must result in rolativity of simultaneity No idiot....RoS says that the speed of light in the train is not isotropic. Ken Seto > > > See the following link for demonstration of this concept: > >http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > Don't bother > > [snip] > > > Then you are saying that your assertion is more valid than > > experimental results....In don't think so. > > Again, the crackpot accuses others of his own folly one again. Ken > continually denies all experimental evidence that shows his > not-really-a-theory to be wrong, and instead makes assertions that his > theory is correct > > [snip] > > > Assertion is not a valid arguement. > > Exactly. hence there is no valid argument for your so-called-theory which > is self-contradictory nonsense.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 26 Oct 2009 10:09 On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > > "absolutely stationary space". > > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > > entrained by the Earth. > > No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every > object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The > rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The > light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute > motion of the ruler. > > Ken Seto > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, and countless others looked for and did not find? You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental support if you so choose. I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums, waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium. In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in all directions relative to the point on the train. If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in all directions relative to the point on the embankment. If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest relative to the K' system. In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at 'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers. A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels from to ANY observer. If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/ A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the aether is at rest relative to the train.
From: Inertial on 26 Oct 2009 19:06 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:4034fd69-6a12-4fff-b772-aa1b9c66ea61(a)d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 25, 3:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 25, 10:16 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The aether is the only thing that is stationary and all material >> > objects are moving within it. >> >> Every aether experiment ever performed has shown the aether is not >> stationary. > > Istropy of the speed of light in all inertial frames shows that the > aether is stationary. Explain the math behind that assertion. That should be good for a laugh.
From: mpc755 on 26 Oct 2009 20:30
Correct, MMX was not a null result. However, the results were not what M&M expected for an absolutely stationary space. The result did not support an absolutely stationary space. The non-null result is more supportive of aether entrainment. > holy grapes; M&M's experiment was *not* a null; although > the annual anomaly was rather small, it was regular enough. > > Miller's result confirmed this. the write-up was brought > to Einstein, at one of hte few times that he was > at his office at Caltech, and he poo-pooed it (according > to I. 4 Gott). > > and one *still* has to account for all of the actual results > "proving relativity & so on." > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > and countless others looked for and did not find? > |