There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: glird on 13 Nov 2009 12:17 On Nov 12, 8:55 pm, mpc755 wrote: > >< Einstein had to say it was immaterial in order for Einstein to say "the idea of motion may not be applied to [aether]". Einstein had to say that or two frames of reference occupying the same three dimensional space would not have the aether at rest relative to both frames. What Einstein was incorrect about is two frames moving relative to one another in shared space cannot have the aether be motionless relative to both. It is physically impossible. > Einstein did not say that the ether is immaterial. He said that we can't assign the idea of motion to parts of it; which means that we can't track the motion of individual portions. He was right about that, but for a reason nobody pointed out: HIS aether was a continuous compressible material NOT MADE OF or configured into PARTICLES. (There is no way to track a portion of matter that is easily dispersed into multiple directions, in each of which a smaller portion of it flows.) >< When you say everything is in the aether, that is exactly right. Matter exists in the aether. Matter has displaced the aether which would otherwise exist where the matter is. > In my terms, "aether" (ether) denotes the continuous aspect of a material field whether or not particles are part of that continuum. As such, it IS matter; the one and only kind of matter that exists. Particles are made of this space-filling material, which they do displace by their presence. >< Einstein also said the state of the aether is dependent on its connections to the matter and the state of the aether in the surrounding space. > If we let "aether" denote only the continuous non-particulate aspect of matter, and let its "state" denote its local density, then he was right about that. >< What is the 'state' of the aether and the 'state' of the surrounding aether if it isn't its state of displacement? > The "states" of matter are solid, liquid and gaseous. If the word "aether" includes particles, then THEY are what constitute those states of matter. (Amorphous matter has no such states.) It is well known that the state of a group of particles (atoms and molecules) depends on their relations -- connections -- to each other; and so does the condition -- density and pressure -- of the intervening easily movable resistively-compressible etheric matter. glird
From: mpc755 on 13 Nov 2009 13:09 On Nov 13, 12:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 8:55 pm, mpc755 wrote: > > > > >< Einstein had to say it was immaterial in order for Einstein to say "the idea of motion may not be applied to [aether]". Einstein had to say that or two frames of reference occupying the same three dimensional space would not have the aether at rest relative to both frames. What Einstein was incorrect about is two frames moving relative to one another in shared space cannot have the aether be motionless relative to both. It is physically impossible. > > > Einstein did not say that the ether is immaterial. He said that we > can't assign the idea of motion to parts of it; which means that we > can't track the motion of individual portions. He was right about > that, but for a reason nobody pointed out: HIS aether was a > continuous compressible material NOT MADE OF or configured into > PARTICLES. (There is no way to track a portion of matter that is > easily dispersed into multiple directions, in each of which a smaller > portion of it flows.) > > >< When you say everything is in the aether, that is exactly right. > > Matter exists in the aether. Matter has displaced the aether which > would otherwise exist where the matter is. > > > In my terms, "aether" (ether) denotes the continuous aspect of a > material field whether or not particles are part of that continuum. As > such, it IS matter; the one and only kind of matter that exists. > Particles are made of this space-filling material, which they do > displace by their presence. > > >< Einstein also said the state of the aether is dependent on its connections to the matter and the state of the aether in the surrounding space. > > > If we let "aether" denote only the continuous non-particulate aspect > of matter, and let its "state" denote its local density, then he was > right about that. > > >< What is the 'state' of the aether and the 'state' of the surrounding aether if it isn't its state of displacement? > > > The "states" of matter are solid, liquid and gaseous. If the word > "aether" includes particles, then THEY are what constitute those > states of matter. (Amorphous matter has no such states.) > It is well known that the state of a group of particles (atoms and > molecules) depends on their relations -- connections -- to each other; > and so does the condition -- density and pressure -- of the > intervening easily movable resistively-compressible etheric matter. > > glird Exactly. A=mc^2, where A is aether. The effect the increase in volume matter has when it transitions to aether is energy.
From: PD on 13 Nov 2009 13:15 On Nov 13, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > > There is no time dilation. > > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > That IS time dilation! > > > General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time > > dilation agreeing with observations. > > Hey wormy that's not time dilation... Um, yes, Ken it is. If you didn't know what time dilation meant in the first place, you could start by admitting it. > .that's GPS second containing > 4.15 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS second contains > the same amount of absolute time as the ground second. > > Ken Seto
From: PD on 13 Nov 2009 13:15 On Nov 13, 9:04 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > On Nov 13, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 12, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > There is no time dilation. > > > > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > > That IS time dilation! > > > > General relativity is a fruitful tool to predict time > > > dilation agreeing with observations. > > > Hey wormy that's not time dilation....that's GPS second containing > > 4.15 more periods of Cs133 radiation to make the GPS second contains > > the same amount of absolute time as the ground second. > > > Ken Seto > > Sam, I gotta agree with Ken. > > Time *has* to be the same everywhere.* What makes you so sure you can make pronouncements about how nature HAS to behave? > The faster or slower aging of one system > over another just has to do with how fast they are > going relative to each other. > *They* have faster or slower pulses relative > to Time, which was already said in the > first part of the sentence when I said 'faster'. > > Because Time *is* our monitor. > > john
From: BURT on 13 Nov 2009 14:17
On Nov 13, 6:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >news:32c4d849-6559-4e72-a6d3-ba5c1404339a(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >> > There is no time dilation. > > > >> > 1. Clocks in different frames runs at different rates. > > > > >> That's what time dilation MEANS. > > > > >> > 2. A clock second does not represent the same duration (absolute time > > > >> > content) in different frames. In other words a clock second is not a > > > >> > universal interval of time in different frames. > > > > >> It isn't required that the clock second represent the same duration in > > > >> different frames. And you confuse "universal" with "absolute". > > > > >> > There is no physical length contraction. > > > >> > 1. The physical length of a meter stick remains that same in all > > > >> > frames. > > > > >> Not according to *measurement*. > > > > >> > 2. The observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick > > > >> > is the physical length of his meter stick and then he uses this > > > >> > assumption and the SR equations to predict the light path length of a > > > >> > moving meter stick is contractioned by a factor of 1/gamma. > > > > >> Nowhere is there *measurement* in this statement. Length contraction > > > >> is (indirectly) *measured*. > > > > >> > IRT is a new theory of relativity. It includes the above concept for > > > >> > time and length. A description of IRT is available in the following > > > >> > link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > > > >> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > > If we can't measure contraction it should not be considered a fact in > > > > science. > > > > We have measured it .. but not directly > > > > > There is no shrinking energy. > > > > Who said there was? > > > > > No flat atom forms no contraction of > > > > space. > > > > SR doesn't say that there is any flattening of atoms (thought LET does). > > > > > The universe cannot go flat. > > > > SR doesn't say it does. You really should try to understand what SR DOES > > > say, and not what is written in popular articles and what crackpots think it > > > means.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If motion shrinks space and trains we need dircet evidence if you are > > consididering proof. > > Well, first of all, science offers proof of nothing, so if you're > looking for proof you're in the wrong zip code. I don't need proof to see that flat atoms are wrong science. This science is not a fact. > > Secondly, indirect evidence is among the best in science for a variety > of reasons. Whether you believe it or not is not really the driving > consideration. What is the indirect evidence? MItch Raemsch > > > > > There are no flat forms; atoms trains or the universe. It is bad > > science. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |