What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Spirit of Truth on 10 Jun 2007 22:51 "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:4663527d$0$7898$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:FCH8i.14257$C96.6883(a)newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > >> Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results >> in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the >> universe we are studying. > Actually, it does. Every experiment done to date has > confirmed that the Lorentz transform is a true representation > of the physics of the universe. If you say otherwise, please > provide a cite to a peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates > it. No, Greg, it doesn't look: 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)!
From: Spirit of Truth on 10 Jun 2007 22:54 "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message news:slrnf66uq2.61o.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... > 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. I gave you an example of using simple words to explain yourself, Bilge. What is it you now want me to explain to you? from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!. > > >> >>>(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: Greg Neill on 10 Jun 2007 23:13 "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message news:AL2bi.1297$TC1.832(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:4663527d$0$7898$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > > news:FCH8i.14257$C96.6883(a)newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > > > >> Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results > >> in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the > >> universe we are studying. > > Actually, it does. Every experiment done to date has > > confirmed that the Lorentz transform is a true representation > > of the physics of the universe. If you say otherwise, please > > provide a cite to a peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates > > it. > > No, Greg, it doesn't look: > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001008/00/Conclusions_About_Simultaneity_of_Two_Events.pdf Not a peer-reviewed publication. Hell, it's even got spelling mistakes.
From: Greg Neill on 10 Jun 2007 23:16 "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message news:CH2bi.1296$TC1.1056(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > > "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. So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker. > > >> 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. Ditto. > > > >> > >> >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. Um, er, how does one change frames if not by acceleration? > > > 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. The accelerating twin will always know that it's he who's accelerating. Acceleration is absolute.
From: Spirit of Truth on 10 Jun 2007 23:30
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:466cbcbc$0$9387$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:AL2bi.1297$TC1.832(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message >> news:4663527d$0$7898$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... >> > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message >> > news:FCH8i.14257$C96.6883(a)newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... >> > >> >> Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results >> >> in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the >> >> universe we are studying. >> > Actually, it does. Every experiment done to date has >> > confirmed that the Lorentz transform is a true representation >> > of the physics of the universe. If you say otherwise, please >> > provide a cite to a peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates >> > it. >> >> No, Greg, it doesn't look: >> >> > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001008/00/Conclusions_About_Simultaneity_of_Two_Events.pdf > > Not a peer-reviewed publication. Hell, it's even got spelling > mistakes. Greg, you are coping out again. The lack of simultaneity example in there shows exactly why lack of simultaneity is false. from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! |