What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y on 1 Jun 2007 02:16 Well, the singularity is a theory for starters. If it is true, then its classification as a place or a space is paradoxical since it has infinite density and no volume. It's fair enough. People need to understand a beginning, even if that beginning defies the concept of infinity which comes as a comfortable idea in the early stages of childhood. Do you know how many people still think the earth is flat ? Millions of people. I have asked this question to most of the people around me and my idiot meter always goes beserko. Q: What would be the shortest distance from Brisbane to Sydney ? A: A Tunnel. What is seemingly paradoxical is that the quicker you get there is the REAL shortest distance. And it is, but the final answer is NOT a paradox. It is also ^more real. A: A tunnel at the quickest possible speed. (fast as a jet plane). Nevertheless what we think of as time in actuality has a zero rate of change. The biggest lesson I have learned in my studies is that it is the placement of the model that is important. If you ask anyone where time comes from, most people will say 'the sun' and they are right. So; replace the model that was placed 2000 years ago. Put a (z) line down the center of the sun. Then, put an (x) and (y) intersecting at the center of the suns mass, and what you have is a 3 dimensional graph. Then; place a dot away from that center and you have 'Earth'. Then; draw a circle around that representing the earths orbit. The graph will plainly show that 'time' as far as we can place it, has an elliptical rate of change. I'd go so far as to say that the ellipse is irrelevant and that the rate of change from the center of earth to the center of the sun is ACTUALLY zero. Does anyone here suggest that the sun and the Earth are not a 3 dimensional collection of placements ? Who really cares a about space time curvature ? Relativity is always and only true of the clock (depending on the kind of clock). A digital clock experiment will show a different time dilation to a grandfather clock experiment. -y > > 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. > > Hey, it is insane but true, every atom of our being came from > no-where. Before the singularity in the Big Bang, there was no > such thing as "place". There was no space because space > or more accurately spacetime is a child of the Big Bang. > It inflated like balloon. So for all intent and purposes, every > atom of our being came from no-where. In planck time > after the Big Bang. Remember that atoms didn't even exist. > All is simply energy (remember the pair creation and annihilations > in high energy photon experiment). Only when it cools down that > we can say matter form slowly. > > J. > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - '
From: Jimmer on 1 Jun 2007 03:00 On Jun 1, 2:16 pm, Y <yanar...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Well, the singularity is a theory for starters. If it is true, then > its classification as a place or a space is paradoxical since it has > infinite density and no volume. It's fair enough. People need to > understand a beginning, even if that beginning defies the concept of > infinity which comes as a comfortable idea in the early stages of > childhood. > > Do you know how many people still think the earth is flat ? Millions > of people. I have asked this question to most of the people around me > and my idiot meter always goes beserko. > > Q: What would be the shortest distance from Brisbane to Sydney ? > > A: A Tunnel. > > What is seemingly paradoxical is that the quicker you get there is the > REAL shortest distance. And it is, but the final answer is NOT a > paradox. It is also ^more real. > > A: A tunnel at the quickest possible speed. (fast as a jet plane). > > Nevertheless what we think of as time in actuality has a zero rate of > change. The biggest lesson I have learned in my studies is that it is > the placement of the model that is important. > > If you ask anyone where time comes from, most people will say 'the > sun' and they are right. So; replace the model that was placed 2000 > years ago. Put a (z) line down the center of the sun. Then, put an (x) > and (y) intersecting at the center of the suns mass, and what you have > is a 3 dimensional graph. Then; place a dot away from that center and > you have 'Earth'. Then; draw a circle around that representing the > earths orbit. The graph will plainly show that 'time' as far as we can > place it, has an elliptical rate of change. I'd go so far as to say > that the ellipse is irrelevant and that the rate of change from the > center of earth to the center of the sun is ACTUALLY zero. > > Does anyone here suggest that the sun and the Earth are not a 3 > dimensional collection of placements ? Who really cares a about space > time curvature ? Relativity is always and only true of the clock > (depending on the kind of clock). A digital clock experiment will show > a different time dilation to a grandfather clock experiment. They use atomic clock and there is time dilation after travelling in fast jet around the world. Atomic clock is the ultimate clock. Well. I really want to know if there are energy processes to the spacetime continuum. I mean. Could some aether (or other) dynamics controlling the space-time interval and spacetime metric be involved. If there are extra degree of freedom. Then I can use the technology to control space and time and I can inflate an extra mini space in my apartment much like the Big Bang Inflating spacetime (note very carefully here that before there was Big Bang, space has no concept or form so the 3D is just one of the possible outputs. Other space configurations can exist. This means it is possible to blow up an extra space within spacetime if there are extra degree of freedom (based on an Aether, etc. based principle). In my extra space. It will be orthogonal to our Bush reference space so I can enter it by some kind of portal. So if you have a 200 square meter apartment. You can increase it to 300-500 sq. meters by adding a parallel space. Gets? Investing in an Aether based Real Estate would have good business potential. Our city are getting crowded, etc. J. Duh. Am I drunk? lol > > -y > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Hey, it is insane but true, every atom of our being came from > > no-where. Before the singularity in the Big Bang, there was no > > such thing as "place". There was no space because space > > or more accurately spacetime is a child of the Big Bang. > > It inflated like balloon. So for all intent and purposes, every > > atom of our being came from no-where. In planck time > > after the Big Bang. Remember that atoms didn't even exist. > > All is simply energy (remember the pair creation and annihilations > > in high energy photon experiment). Only when it cools down that > > we can say matter form slowly. > > > J. > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > '- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Rudolf Drabek on 1 Jun 2007 04:54 On 1 Jun., 01:48, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote in message > > > You can only say: "It has not the property to carry EM waves like > > light we thought" > > Then it ceases to have *any* function at all, and by > Occam's Razor becomes entirely superfluous. The only conclusion was as yours above. That's too simple in my view. Aether seems to be more complex, but you passed it to Occam. > > > > If you can show me what other physical basic principle allows > > propagation of an EM wave leaving the antenna/transmitter I will thank > > you very much and I have learned something. > > But pls avoid Maxwells equations, they say nothing about the transport > > principle, only what are the rules for the transport, e.g. propagating > > with c. > > Huygan's principle, for example. I've found behind only the Navier-Stokes equations and I can't find how this can be applied for EM. But nevertheless this fluid behaves as a FOR, so it can't serve as that medium I'm searching for. What I'm searching for is a medium that can transport EM fields (oscillating charges). The best I've found for me to date is that.: EM leaving the transmitter with c is time dilated and the universe for EM looks like a point, so it's no wonder that it is, acc. to it's clock if it would have one, at the receiver in zero time. For the transceicing process with c from transm. to reic. (our frame) c = const. because c takes the role of an infinite speed. What EM does on the way is not detectable. On basis of that, one can say "no Aether nec.". As it is detected the process of propagation has stopped. So may be my search for a medium is superfluous when no solution is nec. for the EM in it's frame with no dimensions. I have problems with coordinate transformation, if one frame is zero, apart of mass.
From: Y on 1 Jun 2007 05:43 Jimmer : The clock, (regardless of the kind of clock) is an inertia meter. This is what time dilation tells us of which I am certain. Both clocks are existentially so regardless of the inertial frame and do not exist in different 'times'. If time was dilating for every object what you have is a chaos. The truth is, time only dilates for those who carry clocks with them. Time dilation is due to an energy transfer microcosm being placed in a higher or lower inertial frame. Einsteins relativity does work, make no mistake. But it only works for models of time, not time itself. For instance; you cannot accelerate the half life of an isotope simply by putting it into a higher inertial frame. Why ? Because any chemist will tell you so. So, all time is unto the object. Every object has its own time. If they placed the clock in Greenwich (the world meridian) into a higher inertial frame, time would slow down for all clocks which relied on that clock for data. Therefore, TRUE Inertia is very different than what you would calculate using old frameworks. It would also be different depending on the size of the energy transfer system. SO: Time is not Time. Time is really just time keeping - the way it used to be. What I speak of is nothing new, except the fact that certain schools have been pumping the idea of time into allot of peoples minds. A dimension is always a distance. A dimension must not be an invisible thing. To use something invisible is insane. But people are always taught to believe in invisible things - God, Santa, Easter Bunny and so they are comfortable fantasies that we are brought up with. Look at all the insanity these fantasies cause ! As you move around you see things, and you have a memory. Its part of the fact that things are always taking place. Some, call this time, and this is acceptable. But it is not appropriate in relativistic physics. Practical physics yes. But that is all. Physics lives and dies with Newton. It stops with Einstein as borderline insane. The rest IS insane, and the result are just schizophrenic ideas about time travel and gross misunderstanding about the place we live in. Time travel is not possible. They say never say never. I will say it once here. NEVER. -y
From: Greg Neill on 1 Jun 2007 08:22
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006(a)newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain > to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to > the physical univese without using words like "frames" please! You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too? > Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations, How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other. Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the situation is not symmetrical for the two twins. That acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the other sits still, the one that accelerated would have the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing in general, for bathtubs around the globe. > reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations No, decelerations are like accelerations. > AND reciprocal > time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no > matter what answer to the problem I constantly review! There must be hundreds of web pages and more hundreds of usenet threads that have beaten this to death. I can't see where I need to contribute another sampling, or will have anything fundamentally new to add. Sorry. > this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one > can somewhat do away with the reciprocity! Well, even Galilean transforms admit to relativity betwixt certain parameters, such as distance and velocity. Aether theory really starts to lose all traction when quantum effects start showing up. |