What is the Aether? [Relativity]

Prev: How do we define spin with curvature and torsion?
Next: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

From: RP on 30 May 2007 15:57

On May 30, 1:56 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 12:18 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 9:44 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 11:28 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 29, 8:51 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 29, 6:51 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Laurent wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 28, 9:34 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Laurent keeps emphasizing that his Aether is Empty Space
> > > > > > > > which is the source of everything. He mentions in the 2
> > > > > > > > paragraphs (my comment follows after it):
>
> > > > > > > > "First of all, before we continue, we must distinguish empty
> > > > > > > > space from material space. I see empty space as the seat to
> > > > > > > > all fields, synonymous to Einstein's aether, and I see it as primary.
> > > > > > > > Material space, or what I call the cosmic microwave background
> > > > > > > > radiation (CMBR), is a product. Since in my view these are
> > > > > > > > synonymous, from now on I will talk about aether and empty
> > > > > > > > space as one and the same thing.
>
> > > > > > > > Supposedly, from the MMX results we should conclude that
> > > > > > > > the aether is immaterial and unobservable. Now, if empty
> > > > > > > > space were here before matter and could exist independently
> > > > > > > > from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum immaterial and
> > > > > > > > unobservable too?"
>
> > > > > > > > My comment. Before the Big Bang. We can't say there was
> > > > > > > > empty space. In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang
> > > > > > > > as space expands. Space seems to be part of the physical world
> > > > > > > > or whatever is it that banged. Isn't it that there are vacuum
> > > > > > > > fluctuations in every planck bit of space. Space is part of
> > > > > > > > the physical world. Now when we say physical world, we
> > > > > > > > tend to think it is just a concrete world of nut & bolt. But maybe
> > > > > > > > let's just look at it as some kind of reality where mathematics
> > > > > > > > laws can shapeshift into physicality. Therefore there is no
> > > > > > > > need for an Aether because the physical world is not a
> > > > > > > > concrete world we think it is but mathematics objectified.
> > > > > > > > Anyway. I think it is all just semantics. He (& some) wants to use
> > > > > > > > the word Aether but one can describe everything he said
> > > > > > > > by just assuming that the physical world is it. In Gauge
> > > > > > > > Theory, etc. where higher mathematics produce all those
> > > > > > > > experimental data such as electroweak force, etc. We
> > > > > > > > know that physical reality is unique and mathematics
> > > > > > > > objectified. Therefore fragmenting reality into physical
> > > > > > > > and aether or physical and fredi vacuum in a concrete
> > > > > > > > connections won't produce all the predictions offered
> > > > > > > > by the math. In other words, you can't model math as
> > > > > > > > interactions between aether and physical, etc. or vacuum
> > > > > > > > dynamics. The physical world is simply a unique place
> > > > > > > > or a mathematical living machine.
>
> > > > > > > > J.
>
> > > > > > > I am a physicalist, and the aether is the physicalists God.
>
> > > > > > Here is what you are doing. You want to continue where
> > > > > > Einstein "Gravitational Ether" left off. We know Einstein
> > > > > > Gravitational Ether is not the same as the Maxwellian
> > > > > > Aether and so not related to Special Relativity. But you
> > > > > > want to relate to SR by claiming Aether is what defines
> > > > > > the frames and the relationship. But what defines the
> > > > > > relationship can be explained by geometry. So indirectly
> > > > > > what you are doing is claiming the Aether is the reason
> > > > > > why geometry exists and why in this world circle are
> > > > > > round and lines are straight and women bodie are
> > > > > > curved. In a way, you may as well call it God. In fact,
> > > > > > the Aether is your God.
>
> > > > > > About physicialism. Well. The incredible success of
> > > > > > Quantum Field Theory in predicting experiment outcomes
> > > > > > down to many signficiant digits can't be matched by any
> > > > > > newtonian physical model such as dual space or anything.
> > > > > > This is why it appears the physical world is a living
> > > > > > mathematical entity.
>
> > > > > > It's not bad to keep talking about the Aether and explaining
> > > > > > it is the reason circle is round. But try to cook up more details
> > > > > > such as how we can shield gravity if you don't subscribe to
> > > > > > General Relativity and attribute gravity as dynamics of
> > > > > > aether-physical substance. There must be a way to shield
> > > > > > it. Figure it out.
>
> > > > > > About the double slit one photon or electron at a time
> > > > > > experiment. Is your model the same as RP? Hope
> > > > > > you can explain this in an article in your web. BTW...
> > > > > > you said every object has its matter wave. So each
> > > > > > electron, quark has its matter wave. You describe
> > > > > > it as though the particles always exist. But in pair
> > > > > > creation and annihilation. They are cooked up from
> > > > > > the vacuum. Maybe you subscribe to the dual space
> > > > > > version which is newtonian in fashion but this won't
> > > > > > have the same predicting power as the analog QFT.
> > > > > > Dual space, RP and your your pilot wave-particle duality
> > > > > > explanations are digital and can't produce the complexities
> > > > > > of the world. This is the reason I don't subscribe to
> > > > > > nuts and bolts stuff anymore in the wave-particle
> > > > > > subject and its consequences such as electroweak, QFT,
> > > > > > etc. thing..
>
> > > > > > J.
>
> > > > > Here, this is why the speed of light is frame independent.
>
> > > > > "c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
> > > > > permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
>
> > > > Great, Michael Wales just explained how c=c. Now where's the
> > > > explanation of why permeability and permittivity are invariant?
>
> > > > Not that it matters, because the two terms are completely
> > > > interchangable within any equation by simply using the appropriate
> > > > conversion constant. In otherwords this is no explanation of c,
> > > > period. By another name it's called numerology. These terms aren't
> > > > exactly stress and strain. The standard explanation is woefully
> > > > incorrect.
>
> > > Still, that is why the speed of light is frame independent. The speed
> > > of light is determined at the aether level, like it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > It's geometric. The standard derivation of light speed using the
> > arbitrary constants e and mu_o is just numerology, plain and simple.
>
> > c, along with an arbitrary choice of units results in them, rather
> > than they causing c.
>
> Still, it points out to the existing relationship between the aether
> and the propagation speed of fields.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The medium is just the matter in the universe, all of its parts
> > forming a geometric whole. There isn't matter + something else, there
> > is just matter. OTOH, that doesn't imply that there is nothing in
> > between, in fact it requires that the something in between is that
> > same matter. Fermions and their em fields are one and the same. Since
> > an em wave is the propagation of the change in field strength of a
> > collection of charges (or of a single charged particle), then that
> > field is itself the medium of propagation, that is, it is actually in
> > motion, being rigidly attached to the origin of the charge, what we
> > call the fermion. The delay, or rather the measured delay, is what SR
> > predicts. The wave is thus a disturbance in spacetime itself, and from
> > at least one geometrical perspective the wave doesn't even exist, but
> > rather the particles interact directly through time with each other.
>
> > There are many interpretations, but there is no physical evidence of
> > the medium being something other than what is already directly
> > observable, i.e. em fields.
>
> > What's sad is that even though Einstein devoted an entire chapter to
> > the subject to show that space and field are mathematically
> > indistinguishable and thus one and the same, and yet there are those
> > who insist that there is nothing in between. I think the experiment
> > that I provided a link to recently, in which photons from two
> > different sources were split, and then recombined with components from
> > the other source, shows that we can find out what is happening in
> > between without directly measuring the radiation during its
> > propagation. It is there, and it does exist, and it does propagate in
> > wave form. Something must be waving, and thus something must be there
> > to wave. Of course it isn't a material classical aether, it's just
> > spacetime itself, but definitely not nothing.
>
> Einstein's fatal mistake was that he was never able to
> differentiate between spacetime and empty space, he thought they were
> both the same. Otherwise, I think he would have been able to fuse GR
> to quantum mechanics.
>
> Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't
> bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios
> determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very
> small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide.
> Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time
> independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it
> topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space

Then we only disagree about mu_o and epsilon. I assumed that you knew
that these constants have no physical significance. They do not
account for the speed of em wave propagation. Maxwell's physical
model was wrong. The best that we can do with these constants, of
which at least one of them is completely redundant, is to show that
when the drift rate of elctrons is c in a conductor, then the E and B
field forces produced by them are equal on an external charge. This is
how c was first introduced into em theory. Maxwell, like many others
noticed that this was the same as the measured speed of light.
Pretending that mu_o and epsilon are stress and strain and generated a
mocked up version of a wave velocity equation upon those premises is
not only not physics, its laughable.

The c derived from this relationship is not the speed of light
specifically, instead it's the speed that charges must move wrt each
other in order to generate a lorentz force equal to the Coulomb force.
The speed of light just happens to be the same, but this isn't
coincidence, c is just the limiting speed for for electron
interactions, an interaction that we model as light.

From: Jimmer on 30 May 2007 18:40

On May 30, 10:44 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 11:28 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 8:51 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 6:51 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Laurent wrote:
> > > > > On May 28, 9:34 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Laurent keeps emphasizing that his Aether is Empty Space
> > > > > > which is the source of everything. He mentions in the 2
> > > > > > paragraphs (my comment follows after it):
>
> > > > > > "First of all, before we continue, we must distinguish empty
> > > > > > space from material space. I see empty space as the seat to
> > > > > > all fields, synonymous to Einstein's aether, and I see it as primary.
> > > > > > Material space, or what I call the cosmic microwave background
> > > > > > radiation (CMBR), is a product. Since in my view these are
> > > > > > synonymous, from now on I will talk about aether and empty
> > > > > > space as one and the same thing.
>
> > > > > > Supposedly, from the MMX results we should conclude that
> > > > > > the aether is immaterial and unobservable. Now, if empty
> > > > > > space were here before matter and could exist independently
> > > > > > from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum immaterial and
> > > > > > unobservable too?"
>
> > > > > > My comment. Before the Big Bang. We can't say there was
> > > > > > empty space. In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang
> > > > > > as space expands. Space seems to be part of the physical world
> > > > > > or whatever is it that banged. Isn't it that there are vacuum
> > > > > > fluctuations in every planck bit of space. Space is part of
> > > > > > the physical world. Now when we say physical world, we
> > > > > > tend to think it is just a concrete world of nut & bolt. But maybe
> > > > > > let's just look at it as some kind of reality where mathematics
> > > > > > laws can shapeshift into physicality. Therefore there is no
> > > > > > need for an Aether because the physical world is not a
> > > > > > concrete world we think it is but mathematics objectified.
> > > > > > Anyway. I think it is all just semantics. He (& some) wants to use
> > > > > > the word Aether but one can describe everything he said
> > > > > > by just assuming that the physical world is it. In Gauge
> > > > > > Theory, etc. where higher mathematics produce all those
> > > > > > experimental data such as electroweak force, etc. We
> > > > > > know that physical reality is unique and mathematics
> > > > > > objectified. Therefore fragmenting reality into physical
> > > > > > and aether or physical and fredi vacuum in a concrete
> > > > > > connections won't produce all the predictions offered
> > > > > > by the math. In other words, you can't model math as
> > > > > > interactions between aether and physical, etc. or vacuum
> > > > > > dynamics. The physical world is simply a unique place
> > > > > > or a mathematical living machine.
>
> > > > > > J.
>
> > > > > I am a physicalist, and the aether is the physicalists God.
>
> > > > Here is what you are doing. You want to continue where
> > > > Einstein "Gravitational Ether" left off. We know Einstein
> > > > Gravitational Ether is not the same as the Maxwellian
> > > > Aether and so not related to Special Relativity. But you
> > > > want to relate to SR by claiming Aether is what defines
> > > > the frames and the relationship. But what defines the
> > > > relationship can be explained by geometry. So indirectly
> > > > what you are doing is claiming the Aether is the reason
> > > > why geometry exists and why in this world circle are
> > > > round and lines are straight and women bodie are
> > > > curved. In a way, you may as well call it God. In fact,
> > > > the Aether is your God.
>
> > > > About physicialism. Well. The incredible success of
> > > > Quantum Field Theory in predicting experiment outcomes
> > > > down to many signficiant digits can't be matched by any
> > > > newtonian physical model such as dual space or anything.
> > > > This is why it appears the physical world is a living
> > > > mathematical entity.
>
> > > > It's not bad to keep talking about the Aether and explaining
> > > > it is the reason circle is round. But try to cook up more details
> > > > such as how we can shield gravity if you don't subscribe to
> > > > General Relativity and attribute gravity as dynamics of
> > > > aether-physical substance. There must be a way to shield
> > > > it. Figure it out.
>
> > > > About the double slit one photon or electron at a time
> > > > experiment. Is your model the same as RP? Hope
> > > > you can explain this in an article in your web. BTW...
> > > > you said every object has its matter wave. So each
> > > > electron, quark has its matter wave. You describe
> > > > it as though the particles always exist. But in pair
> > > > creation and annihilation. They are cooked up from
> > > > the vacuum. Maybe you subscribe to the dual space
> > > > version which is newtonian in fashion but this won't
> > > > have the same predicting power as the analog QFT.
> > > > Dual space, RP and your your pilot wave-particle duality
> > > > explanations are digital and can't produce the complexities
> > > > of the world. This is the reason I don't subscribe to
> > > > nuts and bolts stuff anymore in the wave-particle
> > > > subject and its consequences such as electroweak, QFT,
> > > > etc. thing..
>
> > > > J.
>
> > > Here, this is why the speed of light is frame independent.
>
> > > "c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
> > > permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
>
> > Great, Michael Wales just explained how c=c. Now where's the
> > explanation of why permeability and permittivity are invariant?
>
> > Not that it matters, because the two terms are completely
> > interchangable within any equation by simply using the appropriate
> > conversion constant. In otherwords this is no explanation of c,
> > period. By another name it's called numerology. These terms aren't
> > exactly stress and strain. The standard explanation is woefully
> > incorrect.
>
> Still, that is why the speed of light is frame independent. The speed
> of light is determined at the aether level, like it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Isn't it that invariant spacetime properties is what limit the speed
of light and the reason it is our ruler is because the photon has
zero mass. If you suddenly lose the mass in your body and
become lightspeed. You'd become light.

About the Aether. I think you are like the religious folks. Jehovah,
Allah is their God. Aether is your God. To destroy aether is to
destroy your God which you can't allow so there is nothing we
can do for Laurent the Aether disciple.

J.

From: Jimmer on 30 May 2007 19:46

From: Jimmer on 30 May 2007 22:19

On May 31, 7:46 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 10:44 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 11:28 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 8:51 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 29, 6:51 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Laurent wrote:
> > > > > > On May 28, 9:34 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Laurent keeps emphasizing that his Aether is Empty Space
> > > > > > > which is the source of everything. He mentions in the 2
> > > > > > > paragraphs (my comment follows after it):
>
> > > > > > > "First of all, before we continue, we must distinguish empty
> > > > > > > space from material space. I see empty space as the seat to
> > > > > > > all fields, synonymous to Einstein's aether, and I see it as primary.
> > > > > > > Material space, or what I call the cosmic microwave background
> > > > > > > radiation (CMBR), is a product. Since in my view these are
> > > > > > > synonymous, from now on I will talk about aether and empty
> > > > > > > space as one and the same thing.
>
> > > > > > > Supposedly, from the MMX results we should conclude that
> > > > > > > the aether is immaterial and unobservable. Now, if empty
> > > > > > > space were here before matter and could exist independently
> > > > > > > from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum immaterial and
> > > > > > > unobservable too?"
>
> > > > > > > My comment. Before the Big Bang. We can't say there was
> > > > > > > empty space. In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang
> > > > > > > as space expands. Space seems to be part of the physical world
> > > > > > > or whatever is it that banged. Isn't it that there are vacuum
> > > > > > > fluctuations in every planck bit of space. Space is part of
> > > > > > > the physical world. Now when we say physical world, we
> > > > > > > tend to think it is just a concrete world of nut & bolt. But maybe
> > > > > > > let's just look at it as some kind of reality where mathematics
> > > > > > > laws can shapeshift into physicality. Therefore there is no
> > > > > > > need for an Aether because the physical world is not a
> > > > > > > concrete world we think it is but mathematics objectified.
> > > > > > > Anyway. I think it is all just semantics. He (& some) wants to use
> > > > > > > the word Aether but one can describe everything he said
> > > > > > > by just assuming that the physical world is it. In Gauge
> > > > > > > Theory, etc. where higher mathematics produce all those
> > > > > > > experimental data such as electroweak force, etc. We
> > > > > > > know that physical reality is unique and mathematics
> > > > > > > objectified. Therefore fragmenting reality into physical
> > > > > > > and aether or physical and fredi vacuum in a concrete
> > > > > > > connections won't produce all the predictions offered
> > > > > > > by the math. In other words, you can't model math as
> > > > > > > interactions between aether and physical, etc. or vacuum
> > > > > > > dynamics. The physical world is simply a unique place
> > > > > > > or a mathematical living machine.
>
> > > > > > > J.
>
> > > > > > I am a physicalist, and the aether is the physicalists God.
>
> > > > > Here is what you are doing. You want to continue where
> > > > > Einstein "Gravitational Ether" left off. We know Einstein
> > > > > Gravitational Ether is not the same as the Maxwellian
> > > > > Aether and so not related to Special Relativity. But you
> > > > > want to relate to SR by claiming Aether is what defines
> > > > > the frames and the relationship. But what defines the
> > > > > relationship can be explained by geometry. So indirectly
> > > > > what you are doing is claiming the Aether is the reason
> > > > > why geometry exists and why in this world circle are
> > > > > round and lines are straight and women bodie are
> > > > > curved. In a way, you may as well call it God. In fact,
> > > > > the Aether is your God.
>
> > > > > About physicialism. Well. The incredible success of
> > > > > Quantum Field Theory in predicting experiment outcomes
> > > > > down to many signficiant digits can't be matched by any
> > > > > newtonian physical model such as dual space or anything.
> > > > > This is why it appears the physical world is a living
> > > > > mathematical entity.
>
> > > > > It's not bad to keep talking about the Aether and explaining
> > > > > it is the reason circle is round. But try to cook up more details
> > > > > such as how we can shield gravity if you don't subscribe to
> > > > > General Relativity and attribute gravity as dynamics of
> > > > > aether-physical substance. There must be a way to shield
> > > > > it. Figure it out.
>
> > > > > About the double slit one photon or electron at a time
> > > > > experiment. Is your model the same as RP? Hope
> > > > > you can explain this in an article in your web. BTW...
> > > > > you said every object has its matter wave. So each
> > > > > electron, quark has its matter wave. You describe
> > > > > it as though the particles always exist. But in pair
> > > > > creation and annihilation. They are cooked up from
> > > > > the vacuum. Maybe you subscribe to the dual space
> > > > > version which is newtonian in fashion but this won't
> > > > > have the same predicting power as the analog QFT.
> > > > > Dual space, RP and your your pilot wave-particle duality
> > > > > explanations are digital and can't produce the complexities
> > > > > of the world. This is the reason I don't subscribe to
> > > > > nuts and bolts stuff anymore in the wave-particle
> > > > > subject and its consequences such as electroweak, QFT,
> > > > > etc. thing..
>
> > > > > J.
>
> > > > Here, this is why the speed of light is frame independent.
>
> > > > "c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
> > > > permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
>
> > > Great, Michael Wales just explained how c=c. Now where's the
> > > explanation of why permeability and permittivity are invariant?
>
> > > Not that it matters, because the two terms are completely
> > > interchangable within any equation by simply using the appropriate
> > > conversion constant. In otherwords this is no explanation of c,
> > > period. By another name it's called numerology. These terms aren't
> > > exactly stress and strain. The standard explanation is woefully
> > > incorrect.
>
> > Still, that is why the speed of light is frame independent. The speed
> > of light is determined at the aether level, like it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Isn't it that invariant spacetime properties is what limit the speed
> of light and the reason it is our ruler is because the photon has
> zero mass. If you suddenly lose the mass in your body and
> become lightspeed. You'd become light.

On second thought. If you'd lose all the mass in your body. I wonder
if you'd really go lightspeed. There are differences between photons
and electrons even if they are both particles and waves.
Photons are associated with vector field while electrons
are associated with spinor field. Also electron field
follow the so called Fermi-Dirac statistics (called
fermions) while photon field (EM field) follow the so called
Bose-Einstein statistics (called bosons). Now if say there
is Higgs uncoupling in the electrons making it lose complete
mass. What would become of its behavior.

>
> About the Aether. I think you are like the religious folks. Jehovah,
> Allah is their God. Aether is your God. To destroy aether is to
> destroy your God which you can't allow so there is nothing we
> can do for Laurent the Aether disciple.

About the Aether again. It's just say we need the cooperations
of physicists for example when borrowing the billion dollar Large
Hadron Collider. If you mention Aether, they won't even let you
near the entrance of it. So try to find synonyms of Aether or
whatever. This weekend. I'd review Lukwik book to understand
Laurent obsessions with the Aether. I wonder if it is purely mental
or does it have a religious like emotional component to it
(in this latter case, there would be no hope as he would be
trapped inside his mind like those religious nuts believing
God has two feet and a cane and decide the fate of the
entire universe with the whim of the mood (for example,
drowning folks in the time of Noah and later having some
regret and bowing not to do again. They may as well
believe in the Aether as God. At least here Aether the God
is simply the law and intelligence of the universe.

J.

> J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Y on 31 May 2007 02:07

Theoretically yes. Actually no. Time started by some people throwing
some silly rocks about the place. It is used to tell the part of day
we are in. To suggest that it is the 4th dimension is as insane as
suggesting that every atom of your being came from no-where.

Theoretically I am 27 years old. This is in birth years. This is
approx 27 years from the day that my senses came into being with the
material world. In actuality, every part of me is as old as the 'big
bang' and whatever came before that. Unless, Tesla did make a real
transported man as depicted in the film the prestige, and I was
created by a machine which used the aether to make a copy of
something. Nonsense right ? The distance to the big bang is currently
measured in earth rotations around the sun. This seems inaccurate to
me. 4.6 billion years = number of days etc.

In actuality there is movement. We can see it so it exists. There is
also speed and we can see that too. If you remove time from physics
you resolve every paradox. But time is a useful model to explain many
things in every aspect of reality, like speed etc. So there is actual
physics and theoretical physics.

Try not to lose sight of the actualities because they will keep us in
check. It would also solve allot of arguments and people could work
together on problems. If we observe the earth as a body that rotates
around the sun, then physics should resolve itself always according to
what is observed rather than being jammed up in old frameworks. There
is always a new framework available. I am optimistic in this respect.
How do we proceed ?

I want to see more virtual models of the solar system working in 3
dimensional software. You can use all the values you know, mass, force
acceleration etc. All of it. You may not require a model for time to
produce this. As far as I am aware certain modeling languages
do not require time as a value. They will be relative in some way to
the pc clock, so an autonomy process will be required for the
software. After-all, it is not an animation that you want to produce.
You want to test real theories. The frictionless ability of 3d
modeling software is a great start.

My suggestion is to start from a very basic theory like my own. i.e.

Space is the host to place as place is the host to space.

As a start; place moving in space will need to be frictionless.
Whoever does this and makes these models available/purchasable by the
public will by a physics HERO in my opinion. If you do, try and keep
the model open, that way you can exchange models rather than having
arguments about sprinkled words etc.

Place moving in place will be with friction depending on the
densities. Use the density of water, use the density of air. I mean,
this should have been done as early as the 90's.

-y

> When I said no time travel I was thinking about time machines, but
> theoretically we could, that's what the Twins Paradox is all about,
> but we just wouldn't be able to get back.

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Prev: How do we define spin with curvature and torsion?
Next: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY