What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bilge on 3 Jun 2007 22:37 On 2007-06-02, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > > "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message > news:slrnf62els.3qi.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... >> 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? > > You obviously HAVEN'T read it. I read scientific journals for scientific information. [...] >> The many epr experiments. > > List even one experiment proving lack of simultaneity, Bilge. ``Quantum Correlations with Spacelike Separated Beam Splitters in Motion: Experimental Test of Multisimultaneity'' Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120404 (2002) >>> It IS false. >> Which only proves my point regarding your definition of real being that >> which contradicts real experiments > > Do you even know what "simultaneity" means? Do you have anything intelligent to say? Get another hobby. High school math is beyond your abilities. > > >>>>> 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. > > Again, the NOW event is physical and all observers perceive the same > NOW event. Inappropriate math is simply that. > > > from: Spirit Of Truth > > (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! > >
From: Bilge on 3 Jun 2007 22:38 On 2007-06-03, Spirit of Stupidity <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > > "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message > news:slrnf637b6.3qi.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... >> On 2007-06-01, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: >>> >>> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message >>> news:465f0fee$0$15975$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... >>>> "Laurent" <cyberdyno(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). >>> >>> woh! >>> >>> 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! >> >> Please provide an example of what you mean > > I, moving away from you, see you moving away from me. In other words, you cannot do what you are expecting others to do. > >>(newtonian mechanics >> will be fine). Oh, wait... You probably did not realize that a >> galilean frame is still a frame and newtonian mechanics hinges >> on the galilean definition of a frame. >> >>> Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations, >>> reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations AND reciprocal >>> time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no >>> matter what answer to the problem I constantly review! >> >> Naturally, since it wasn't worth your effort to calculate something >> which would contradict your opinion of the result. >> >>> this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one >>> can somewhat do away with the reciprocity! >> >> So, are you suggesting that physicists abandon a theory which >> makes perfect physical sense and serves as the basis for theories >> which agree with all known experimental data in favor of theory >> based on a principle which precludes the comparison of two >> measurements of the same phenomena and a mysterious substance that >> still can't account for any of the phenomena for which it was >> hypothesized and whose only prtoperty seems to be an uncanny >> ability to influence any physical process so as to evade detection? >> Gee, sign me up... > > Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results > in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the > universe we are studying. > > > from: Spirit Of Truth > > (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!. > > >
From: Rudolf Drabek on 4 Jun 2007 10:30 On 3 Jun., 12:34, firstn...(a)lastname.net (Florian) wrote: > Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > > 1. MMX gave a null result. To state from that "there is no Aether" is > > wrong > > You can only say: "It has not the property to carry EM waves like > > light we thought" > > Each time I've seen the set up of a MMX, both arms of the interferometer > were horizontal. Is there any MM experiment peformed with one vertical > arm and one horizontal arm? > > -- > Florian > > "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" > Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0) Between Aequator and pole you have 90° already. It makes no difference. Also on other places you may have 90° inbetween. Never a difference was found.
From: Rudolf Drabek on 4 Jun 2007 10:39 On 3 Jun., 10:19, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > "maxwell" <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message > > news:1180798371.614532.119540(a)x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. Don't agree with you. It is only the shortest possible language to communicate in physics. But I agree with you, that a lot of physicians forget that fact. Phil. is the basis of all. Often it appeared that a math. method later found it's use in physics. Acc. to Wittgenstein: What you can't say you have to be silent. Or you can show it ( e.g. describe "red") > > And making physics conform to math is nonsense = lack of > simultaneity. > > from: Spirit of Truth > > (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! > >
From: Dono on 4 Jun 2007 10:47
On Jun 3, 3:34 am, firstn...(a)lastname.net (Florian) wrote: > Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > > 1. MMX gave a null result. To state from that "there is no Aether" is > > wrong > > You can only say: "It has not the property to carry EM waves like > > light we thought" > > Each time I've seen the set up of a MMX, both arms of the interferometer > were horizontal. Is there any MM experiment peformed with one vertical > arm and one horizontal arm? > > -- > Florian > > "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" > Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0) You must mean that the interfereometer plane always coincides with the local tangent plane to the Earth surface, right? The reason is mechanical, the older interferometers were placed on heavy platforms that were rotated on a mercury bath. Tom Roberts will chime in and explain that it would have been impractical to turn the setup in a plane perpendicular on the Erath tangent plane since the mercury would drip and the arms would bend :-) Now, there is no reason why the modern arrangements, using vibrating cavities could not be set up "vertically". See here : http://qom.physik.hu-berlin.de/research_mm.htm The question for you is why would such an experiment be intersting? There is a crackpot in this forum, named Ken Seto that thinks that there would be influence from the GR redshift effect but since these cavities are minuscule, the effect would be negligible. |