What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jimmer on 1 Jun 2007 08:49 On Jun 1, 5:43 pm, Y <yanar...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 doesn't dilate for every object of course. It is only our spacetime perception of it. Say you can fly at 3/4 the speed of light. From your point of view. Time won't slow down. But when you return to me. You'd be younger and all the cells in your body would reflect it including your watch. This is all logical so that the laws of physics is the same in all inertial frames of reference. In a purely concrete and purely physical world. This won't make sense but we are not living in a physical world but more like inside a simulation of some kind. Imagine decades from now when AI becomes establish and you are going to make a new computer game. You need to apply Special Relativity in the computer game to be realistic because after you turn off the power, the game world would vanish. This means there is no privilege frame of reference because it is just a program, so SR should apply. > Time dilation is due to an energy transfer microcosm being placed in a > higher or lower inertial frame. Einsteins relativity does work, make What do you mean by higher or lower inertial frame? Pls. explain. > 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. They can increase the life of a muon by accelerating it so yes if you find a way to accelerate a radioactive substance close to the speed of light. Instead of decaying in say 500 years. It would decay in say 100,000 years so your accelerator has to swirl it around that centuries. > > 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. energy transfer? pls. elaborate. I don't understand what you are saying. > > 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. If you don't unite space and time. There would be flaws with motions relative to one another so the programmer has to tie up space and time together creating the effects of SR. > > 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. > If the Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has any basis in fact. When you say go time travel to last week. The world and timeline would split into two such that in this world. You are gone and the past didn't change. But in the parallel world. You are living one week prior. Of course just speculations. Special Relativity says instantaneous communication capability can make you pull some time travel stunt. What if the randomness inherent in quantum entanglement is not set in stone. A non-local bohm hidden variable theory would in principle enable you to send instantaneous signal that would go against causality and pull time travel stunt. But if we are living inside a simulation. Of course the programmer would create time travel protection subroutines, etc. Yes. Physics is better than any science fiction or fairy tale that's why it's one way to get myself entertained. Lol... J. J. > -y
From: Laurent on 1 Jun 2007 10:03 On May 31, 2:09 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180634363.526421.224010(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 31, 8:24 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a > > > > medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a > > > > preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a > > > > medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley. > > > > Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes > > > a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing. > > > It is an important distinction from acoustic waves. > > > Right, that's where force lines come from. > > Force lines are a metaphor for the isopotents of the > given field. They have no basis in a mechanical aether. > > If free space has mechanical properties, what is its > stiffness (can't have transverse wave propagation without > a rigid material)? It must be huge for it to carry waves > at the speed of light. What is its Young's modulus? How > about shear strength? Density? How can all these > disparate mechanical properties required to serve the > purpose of a medium for light propagations be reconciled > with null experimental results for its detection? " But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. " -- Einstein The aether is devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical events. Do you understand? " Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. " -- Einstein The idea of motion may not be applied to it. Got that?
From: Laurent on 1 Jun 2007 10:07 On May 31, 2:15 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180634509.457250.262660(a)q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > MMX was null so is irrelevant. > > > All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the > > aether. > > Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of > the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious. > You can start by listing the mechanical properties of > the aether as needed to match the observed data such > as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX > results, relativistic velocity addition for light, > etc., etc. > > > > > You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving > > object. > > You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun > without significant change in its momentum through a > medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation > of light). A medium stiffer than steel? What medium is that? Do you understand Mach's explanation of inertia? If you do, then you should also know what momentum is.
From: Greg Neill on 1 Jun 2007 10:13 "Laurent" <cyberdyno(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1180706588.501014.195480(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 2:09 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1180634363.526421.224010(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 31, 8:24 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a > > > > > medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a > > > > > preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a > > > > > medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley. > > > > > > Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes > > > > a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing. > > > > It is an important distinction from acoustic waves. > > > > > Right, that's where force lines come from. > > > > Force lines are a metaphor for the isopotents of the > > given field. They have no basis in a mechanical aether. > > > > If free space has mechanical properties, what is its > > stiffness (can't have transverse wave propagation without > > a rigid material)? It must be huge for it to carry waves > > at the speed of light. What is its Young's modulus? How > > about shear strength? Density? How can all these > > disparate mechanical properties required to serve the > > purpose of a medium for light propagations be reconciled > > with null experimental results for its detection? > > > " But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an > intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that > of the ether of the mechanical ondulatory theory of light. The ether > of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid > of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine > mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. " -- Einstein > > The aether is devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but > helps to determine mechanical events. Do you understand? > > " Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, > therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of > relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there > not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of > existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), > nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this > ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic > of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked > through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. " -- > Einstein > > The idea of motion may not be applied to it. Got that? > What's your point? Einstein says that the "aether" of relativity has no physical existence, and that instead space is endowed with certain specific properties that are divorced from any sort of ponderable existence. He is not advocating the classical aether. Cranks and other aether proponents often cite this quote as though it were an endorsement for the classical aether, that is, a medium that carries light as water carries water waves, but it is not.
From: Laurent on 1 Jun 2007 10:24
On May 31, 10:14 pm, 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. Imagine yourself in this emty space before the Big Bang, would be able to tell its size? No. Size is not a property of empty space, neither is motion. Empty space has no beginning and no end, it is eternal and immutable. It is also all pervading or omnipresent. But the most interesting property of empty space is its oneness, its wholeness. As Einstein said, it is not composed of parts that follow a timeline. The aether is one and it's everywhere, that's why is doesn't need to move. In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang > as space expands. Yes, but that space you are talking about is not empty, it is packed full with photons. 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. |