What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Greg Neill on 8 Jun 2007 23:26 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hzevsk.kez79vxv9d4wN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > In order for there to be no* sideways drift, the > > direction of flow would have to be always radial > > no matter that the Earth is moving through space > > (and constantly changing direction to boot). > > Yes and it would be the case If ether is attracted by any mass. May be a > scheme would help: > > http://nachon.free.fr/asp-ether.png > > The ether flow would always be radial to any mass. No, it would not. It would imply highly improbable characteristics for the aether, bordering on mischievous intelligence bent on foiling efforts to detect it. It would need to predict the motion of the Earth in its orbit and compensate the flow rate to accommodate observers at different locations.
From: Florian on 9 Jun 2007 05:55 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message > news:1hzevsk.kez79vxv9d4wN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > In order for there to be no* sideways drift, the > > > direction of flow would have to be always radial > > > no matter that the Earth is moving through space > > > (and constantly changing direction to boot). > > > > Yes and it would be the case If ether is attracted by any mass. May be a > > scheme would help: > > > > http://nachon.free.fr/asp-ether.png > > > > The ether flow would always be radial to any mass. > > No, it would not. Hu? Do you realize that gravity is always radial to a mass? I don't think gravity has characteristics bordering on mischievous intelligence :-) > It would need to predict the motion of the Earth in its orbit and > compensate the flow rate to accommodate observers at different > locations. What prediction? The Earth would be the cause of the flow. -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Greg Neill on 9 Jun 2007 08:13 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hzfp32.18les2g1ugs238N%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message > > news:1hzevsk.kez79vxv9d4wN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > > > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > In order for there to be no* sideways drift, the > > > > direction of flow would have to be always radial > > > > no matter that the Earth is moving through space > > > > (and constantly changing direction to boot). > > > > > > Yes and it would be the case If ether is attracted by any mass. May be a > > > scheme would help: > > > > > > http://nachon.free.fr/asp-ether.png > > > > > > The ether flow would always be radial to any mass. > > > > No, it would not. > > Hu? Do you realize that gravity is always radial to a mass? > I don't think gravity has characteristics bordering on mischievous > intelligence :-) > > > > It would need to predict the motion of the Earth in its orbit and > > compensate the flow rate to accommodate observers at different > > locations. > > What prediction? The Earth would be the cause of the flow. The Earth is not stationary in space. If space contains an aether, then the Earth moves through it. In fact, it accelerates through it (orbital motion). The aether on the leading face would necessarily be moving faster than the trailing face. So even if this flow were generally radial (due to gravity?) then it would be biased due to the motion of the Earth through it, unless it somehow "knew" when to speed up or slow down to compensate.
From: Spirit of Truth on 10 Jun 2007 22:36 "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message news:slrnf66unh.61o.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... > 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) Common, Bilge, show some inkling that you know what we are talking about here. Look, here is another example showing how lack of simultaneity is nonsense. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001008/00/Conclusions_About_Simultaneity_of_Two_Events.pdf From: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! > >>>> 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: Spirit of Truth on 10 Jun 2007 22:47
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:46615322$0$4425$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:bM88i.5370$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. Yes, but that is simply that can be taken as an experience of a gravitational field with the Universe accelerating around that Twin. >> 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. Yes, the latter and the answer is as above. >> >> >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. Well, Einstein reckoned it wasn't that and the differentiation was in the changing frames at the destination of one of the Twins. > 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] Actually Uncle Al appears to have destructive impulses towards clocks and in fact David put it better as follows but an opposite action and evaluation is possible so it fails to differentiate the two. "Consider that you could have * clock B stay home, * clock A synchronize with B in passing (having accelerated before), then * some long distance away A' synchronizes with A in passing, while * A' retuns to pass by B where * the difference between B and A' is noted. No acceleration in the experimental period, yet different elapsed time." Point is you could have that happen in reverse with the A seeing himself as not moving and the first clock synchonize with what he sees as a moving B etc. from: Spirit of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! |