What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Spirit of Truth on 2 Jun 2007 03:28 Clarified a meaning.... "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, GR apparantly disagrees 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)!.
From: John Christiansen on 2 Jun 2007 04:41 "Y" <yanarchi(a)hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:1180750336.050094.204000(a)g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > 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. That is nonsense. The number of days in a year is not depending on the shape of Earth's orbit. It is depending on the speed in the orbit and the rotational speed. John Christiansen > >> > 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: Bilge on 2 Jun 2007 05:38 On 2007-05-30, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message > news:slrnf5g3mm.c9g.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... >> On 2007-05-26, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: >> >> Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine? >> >>> Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past >>> and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which >>> IS false. >> >> Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary, I'm >> sure. >> Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in which >> those >> postulates appear? > > Read 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' by Brian Greene...a Best Seller. > Einstein refers in his 1905 ? lecture to lack of simultaneiety...just > doesn't expose it's real consequence. You mean like the experimental data which support it? >>> What Relativitists ignore is that 'lack of simultaneity' is not real >> >> Ahhhh... Yet another fruitcake whose definition of ``real'' is >> ``that which contradicts real experiments.'' > > ??? You are surely not saying that what is actual in the Universe > does not take precedence over the math one choses to use > even when that math is inappropriately used? Which part of why you are a fruitcake did you not understand? > Lack of simultaneiety has never been experimentally proven. The many epr experiments. > It IS false. Which only proves my point regarding your definition of real being that which contradicts real experiments. >>> so the Lorentz math is not the correct math to use for the >>> M & M experiment neither for the aether theory nor SR. >> >> Get another hobby. Apparently, geometry and trigonometry are over >> your head. > > > No, you really should look at how an event could possibly happen > in one frame at a different time from another frame (not including > time for c to bring information nor doppler effect). It's very simple for anyone who can understand basic geometry and trigonometry if the person isn't too stupid to realize that the universe might not fit his/her preconceptions.
From: Greg Neill on 2 Jun 2007 07:26 "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message news:bM88i.5370$u56.1203(a)newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > > "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. No. Only one twin feels the acceleration. > A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe > accelerates away. What local gravitational field? The thought experiment can take place far from any large masses. Or are you referring to the equivalence of acceleration and a uniform gravitational field? In that case, again, only one twin experiences it. This "field" is only experienced by the twin that is accelerating. > > >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. I find that hard to fathom. Acceleration is the thing that breaks the symmetry between the twins' otherwise identical experiences. In relativity-speak, it distinguishes their frames of reference. The important difference is the different spacetime intervals that the two twins cover. On a simple worldline map (space on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis), the twin with the longer worldline, with both twins starting together and ending together, experiences less time. Uncle Al does a credible job in describing a version of the thought experiment that even eliminates the acceleration component during the period when each twin's clocks are running during the "test": http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d17e0a0788cf1d21/1df7d9a7dbeca962?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#1df7d9a7dbeca962 It might be worth taking a look. [snip]
From: Jimmer on 2 Jun 2007 09:08
On Jun 2, 9:31 am, Y <yanar...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 When you go outside at night and watch the sky. Common sense would tell you that time in those stars and galaxies you see with your telescope is the same as time here. In other words, absolute time rules in the cosmos. But this is for man in the street. For us who have awakened from the Cosmic Matrix. The time is different in each star and galaxy you see. Where their gravitional field is strong say relative to earth, time is slower. Supposed. there are beings living in a planet with 20 times the gravity of earth. Those adamatium beings would have time that is slower so while spending one hour in your telescope. Only a second tick by in their planet. This goes for different objects which tick at different times throughout the galaxies. About the physical world being real. Well. Before measurements and decoherence. All quantum objects are are in superposition without definite location and shape. The classical world is just an approximation of a quantum reality. The other night. I imagined what it would be to be like the photon or electron in between the source and detector in the double slit experiment. As I was contemplating on it. I seemed to get stuck in the superposition where space doesn't even exist and there is no left, right, up, down because you are everywhere. Then morning came and a ray of light hit the superposition causing decoherence which produces the same outcome as collapse of the wave function. Then I woke up. Welcome to the Cosmic Matrix. :) J. > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |