What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laurent on 1 Jun 2007 16:15 On Jun 1, 10:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180706867.127297.317330(a)q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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? > > Speed of propagation of a wave in a material depends upon > the stiffness of the material. The last time I looked, > the speed of light was much higher than the speed of > sound in steel. The aether is immaterial. > > > > > Do you understand Mach's explanation of inertia? If you do, then you > > should also know what momentum is. > > Non sequitur. Weren't we talking about aether drag?
From: Laurent on 1 Jun 2007 16:31 On Jun 1, 10:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180706867.127297.317330(a)q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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? > > Speed of propagation of a wave in a material depends upon > the stiffness of the material. The last time I looked, > the speed of light was much higher than the speed of > sound in steel. The aether does not ondulate, it doesn't move, what ondulates are two fields, one electric and the other magnetic, and they do it at speed 'c'. > > > > > Do you understand Mach's explanation of inertia? If you do, then you > > should also know what momentum is. > > Non sequitur.
From: Y on 1 Jun 2007 21:31 We are not living in a simulation. We are living in a physical world of material and light. When material and light intersect sometimes you get illusions, and these illusions are phenomena. Relativity is like a rainbow. You can see it, but it has no beginning and no end. The more you chase it the further it will move away from you. You are wrong about becoming younger traveling at that speed. You will not be younger traveling at that speed. Your clock will show a different time because it is a mechanical device that was placed in a higher inertial frame. The cells in your body are not at a slower rate of decay because of this higher inertial frame. When you are born you are in growth. When you hit about 40 you begin to decay. This is the mortal coil that we all know is common sense. We are also made of what we eat. If a baby were not to eat, it would not grow, it would die. You need to speak to some chemists for your own mental well being, and ask them if you can accelerate the half life of matter by placing it in higher inertial frames. You can't. hehehe, a simulation. I agree that most of the material around us are made into models, but lets face it. It is real. -y On Jun 1, 10:49 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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.
From: Y on 1 Jun 2007 22:12 What I mean by higher and lower is what is required of the time dilation experiment. i.e one clock in a higher inertial frame, and the other in a lower inertial frame. The lower inertial frame I speak of is the relative inertial frame of the planet. If you slowed the planet down your clock would read the wrong time. WHY ? Because time is a model that was developed according to the day night dichotomy, and the position of the earth to the sun. There are 365 days in a year not 360 because the orbit around the sun is slightly elliptical. > > 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. You don't need to accelerate a clock to light speed for time to dilate. So why would you need to accelerate an isotope to get a different half-life ? The point is you cant change the half life of any matter using speed alone. Cool ? > energy transfer? pls. elaborate. I don't understand what you are > saying. Ok, imagine you have a battery, and this battery is connected to a circuit, and this circuit moved a motor which moved the clock hand. So you have an energy transfer mechanism working all the way down to the end of the clock hand. This is like a little world of its own, and is susceptible to change. If you spin the clock around, the clock hand will be susceptible to the forces applied in rotation and so the clock will read differently than another clock. > 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. It is possible to program space (in computers)without time. After-all it is not an animation that you are trying to produce. Imagine it were like a cad program and you placed an object in this time autonomous space with a mass as big as the sun, then you also placed another object as massive as the earth at roughly the same distance. You could not use any normal programming language. You would need to use assembly. It would also be something like c-64 emulators that while running change the speed of the pc-clock relative to the emulator window. It would be done that way. It would need to be a pc-clock autonomous program. So then you can but the laws of gravity in. (all based on distances). Then you can program some tools for building etc etc. Then imagine grabbing the earth object and throwing it into a path across the sun, and watch it curve around into an orbit. You wont need time for the program. Timeless computers were the way to go in the 50's. AND, guess what . . .THEY ARE BACK ! :) http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1723718_ITM
From: Spirit of Truth on 2 Jun 2007 03:14
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:46600ec8$0$10391$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:rEO7i.5094$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? No, that's a cop out. You can talk in English words describing the relevent points where a difference occurs and explain why each observer has a difference again in simple English words. >> 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. No, they apparantly disagree that the acceleration is absolute. A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe accelerates away. >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. Same as I wrote above. Greg, if one treats accelerations and decelerations as absolutes obviously the problems go away ....but all the sites I see don't allow those to be taken as differentiating the twins. > 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. Sure, and no problem. The paradox comes into play with time dilation. > Aether theory really starts to lose all traction when quantum > effects start showing up. Perhaps. from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!. |