What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jimmer on 2 Jun 2007 09:23 On Jun 2, 10:12 am, Y <yanar...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 ? The reason you can change the half life of any matter by accelerating it to significant relativistic speed such as 1/2 the speed of light is because when they are that speed. Time dilate. Meaning after say swirling it for centuries and you compare the sample to a control substance. The accelerated substance is younger than the control substance. So their half life would change. About how to accelerate it. You can stick the substance to a relativistic rpm propeller blade tip and let it run for centuries. > > 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. But in raising an AI (Artificial Intelligence) pet in the computer, you need to give it time. So you need to program GR and SR into the system so there would be no privileged frame of reference. Because if there is, what if the AI pet or humanoid evolve into intelligence more than Einstein's and it can find the edge of space and see the boundary of their virtual world and know they are inside a system. In order for that not to happen. We need to apply invariance in their space/time hence modeling the physics of their virtual world with SR and GR and even quantum mechanics (to give the illusion of existence of particles). Of course I'm not saying we are inside a computer but if say we were. We may not be able to distinguish it and know we are simulations of a civilization equal to 1 billion A.D. Also remember the contextuality in QM where you can't assume anything before measurment. What proof is it that in those stars and galaxies you saw in the sky. There is an inner reality to them. What if the system just sends outputs to what we think is our solar system. It would give us the illusion of the largeness of the universe. Maybe the purpose is so we won't find out about the boundary of the virtual space in the simulation? Of course, these are just hypothetical presuppositions. J. > > 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: maxwell on 2 Jun 2007 11:32 On May 25, 4:54 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 7:31 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 25, 5:58 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > Philosophy is not physics. > > DUH!!! Physics without philosophy is just math.
From: maxwell on 2 Jun 2007 11:40 On May 25, 7:00 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1180137297.580772.224220(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > : On May 25, 7:31 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : > On May 25, 5:58 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : > [...] > : > > : > Philosophy is not physics. > : > : > : DUH!!! > > Endorsed. Only a mathematician or engineer could agree with this viewpoint. I must remind everyone that Newton described himself as a "Natural Philosopher".
From: Laurent on 2 Jun 2007 12:27 On Jun 2, 11:40 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > On May 25, 7:00 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote:> "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1180137297.580772.224220(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > : On May 25, 7:31 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > : > On May 25, 5:58 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > : > [...] > > : > > > : > Philosophy is not physics. > > : > > : > > : DUH!!! > > > Endorsed. > > Only a mathematician or engineer could agree with this viewpoint. > I must remind everyone that Newton described himself as a "Natural > Philosopher". They go hand to hand, but Physics is Physics and Philosophy is Philosophy.
From: Bilge on 2 Jun 2007 12:28
On 2007-05-31, GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 8:10 pm, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: >> On 2007-05-29, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On May 29, 5:15 am, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: >>>> On 2007-05-28, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> [...] >> >>>>> Here it appears that you are trying to find the fundamental basis >>>>> for the existence of the physical properties (eps_0, mu_0, Z_0 and c) >> >>>> Do you really think that the ratios of human defined SI constants >>>> (not to mention redundant ratios of those constants) has any basis in >>>> physics? >> >>> Are you familiar with the system of dimensions and units in Physics? >>> Can you distinguish between 'physical dimensions' and the 'unit >>> systems'? >> >> Yeah - my point is that you can't make that distinction and you > > Isn't it too vague? You may not be convinced with my arguments, but > the question was "Can you distinguish between 'physical dimensions' > and the 'unit systems'?" Please be specific, either say that such a > distinction doesn't exist or say that you are not clear about it. Uh, you provided the examples (eps_0, etc.). The fact that you think four redundant constants which represent the number 1 are physical constants, (yet failed to include the number \alpha, which is the only physical constant related to E&M) is about as specific as it gets. [...] > 1. Dimensions & Units > ------------------ > (a) Do you think the dimensions and units of *speed* are both > arbitrary and you can change them as you please? Oh, gee --- I forgot - god defined meters and seconds 10,000 years ago when he created the earth from whence the commitee sprang to adopt them. > Or do you think that > only units of speed are arbitrary but its dimensions are linked with > those of a large number of physical parameters (like force, momentum, > energy, distance, time etc.) and hence cannot be tampered with > arbitrarily. I'm sorry, but I have attempted to explain this to you on prior occasions and you either didn't bother to read my reply or you were incapable of understanding it. Since your arguements are so supericial, yet you haven't managed to pick up on that, I assume that you are incapable of understanding the answer and therefore don't bother to read it. I am not going to explain relativity to you just so you can misconstrue the explanation as a defense against education. If you want to play scientist and invent new theories, go study enough science to at least be conversant with the theory you want to believe is flawed. Your entire argument consists of (1) not understanding relativity, (2) inventing a hodge-podge of slogans which you call relativity to try and avoid the obvious handicap to credibility presented by (1), (3) arguing against your own slogans. I'll be the first to admit that your argument against your own slogans has merit, although not for the reasons you would like to believe. If you are going to argue against relativity, argue at a level that gives me the impression that you understand it. If you don't understand relativity, you can't possibly know whether it is right or wrong. > > (b) The intrinsic *impedance* Z_0 of space continuum is measured to > be 377 ohms. Do you consider that either the magnitude or units or > dimensions of Z_0 are arbitrary and can be changed as you please? > > (c) If by any chance you agree that the dimensions of speed 'c' and > impedance 'Z_0' cannot be changed arbitrarily, then do you agree that > the dimensions of eps_0 and mu_0 can also not be changed arbitrarily? > > 2. Spacetime continuum > ------------------- > (a) Do you consider *spacetime* continuum to be a physical entity > or just a mathematical notion? Does it possess any physical > properties? If so, kindly name the *physical properties* of the > spacetime continuum and indicate their measured values (in a so called > 'flat' region). > > (b) Do you understand that a non-zero value of the *Riemann > tensor* composed from the metric coefficients of 'spacetime' continuum > actually represents the deformations in the continuum (which is > generally regarded as the 'curvature' of the continuum)? > > (c) Do you understand that the deformations in 'space' continuum > can be associated with the strained state of the continuum? > > 3. Material Media approximated as a Continuum > ------------------------------------------ > (a) When a material media is approximated to a continuum of points > with bulk properties of density, elasticity etc., it is found to > support the propagation of transverse as well as longitudinal strain > waves. If you can figure out, kindly let us know the necessary > conditions under which the speed of propagation of transverse strain > waves will be the same as that of longitudinal strain waves? > > (b) When we study the propagation characteristics of strain waves > in a material media, approximated as a continuum, is it necessary to > account for the particulate nature of the media (in addition to its > bulk properties) to obtain correct results? > > (c) Consider a short strain wave pulse propagating in a continuum > at constant speed c1. Do you regard the speed c1 to be a > characteristic of the strain pulse or a characteristic of the > continuum? > > GSS > > |