Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 22:50 On Dec 19, 10:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 8:53 pm, mpc755 wrote:> On Dec 19, 4:31 pm, glird wrote: > >< Contrary to my expectation that nothing would happen to clocks at rest inside a closed chamber in which THE LOCAL MEDIUM (air) WAS AT > > REST, the clock flown in the same direction as Earth's surface moves > ran slowest, the one flown in the opposite direction ran fastest, and > the third one's rate was somewhere in between. > [snip] > So, mpc, how do YOU explain the Pan Am experiment? > > > > > >< The Pan Am flights are flying in both directions against the aether which is entrained by the Earth. > > > Slow down, mpc, and think a bit longer before replying. If both Pan > Am planes were flying (at identical speeds) through a medium at rest > to earth, then how come they didn't both slow down identically > relative to a clock that remained stationary on the ground? > I don't know if I would say the aether is at rest with respect to the Earth. The aether is entrained by the Earth. The aether is entrained by the Earth and travels east to west with respect to the Earth's rotation. When the plane flies east to west it has more of an aether 'headwind' and when it flies west to east it has more of a 'tailwind'. When the plane flies east to west consider the plane to be flying 'against' the aether and when it flies west to each consider the plane to be flying 'with' the aether. > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment > > "If the Earth is traveling through an ether medium, a beam reflecting > back and forth parallel to the flow of ether would take longer than a > beam reflecting perpendicular to the ether because the time gained > from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind." > > > Right answer; wrong reason. {The downwind time for a ray to travel > x = 1 unit of distance > would be x/(c+v) and the upwind time would be > x/(c-v), so if v = .8c it would take 5/9 second for the downwind time > and 5 seconds for the upwind time; so -- because it would take 1 > second each way if the medium and Earth co-moved, the time gained from > traveling downwind IS less than that lost traveling upwind. That, > however, isn't WHY a beam reflecting back and forth would take longer > than a beam reflecting perpendicularly.) > > >< When the atomic clock {is} on the Pan Am flight east to west it is flying against the entrained aether and when it is flying west to east it is flying with the entrained aether. > > > I see you DID slow down and reconsider your reply. Please pardon my > prior instantaneous remark after you said, "The Pan Am flights are > flying in both directions against the aether which is entrained by the > Earth." > > ><The downwind and upwind effect is going to have a greater effect on the atom's oscillations when flying against the entrained aether. > > > What's that have to do with the expectation that the total two-way > time, downwind + upwind, would take longer than the total two-way time > perpendicularly? > The clock 'ticks' slower east to west than it does west to east due to its interaction with the aether. The plane flying east to west has more of a 'headwind' against the aether then the plane flying west to east. Perpendicular has nothing to do with it. Perpendicular was part of the MMX quote describing how stuff is effected the more it moves with and against the aether. > >< This means the effects of aether, even though being displaced by the plane, must still be going through the plane. The reason momentum can be conserved even with aether flowing through matter is the same as the reason momentum is conserved by the Earth. > > > I woke up this morning thinking, "Mpc seems to be thinking exactly > what I was 55 years ago, when the voice in the middle of my head said, > 'Jerry! Let matter be compressible'." > (I'd been trying to figure out the mechanism of gravity; and was > thinking in terms of a universally stationary ether made of > infinitesimally small INcompressible bits through which ponderable > atomic matter flew at various velocities. Given the brand new basic > premise -- which ultimately canceled the kinetic-atomic-theory that > ALL matter is made of ultimate particles seperated by empty spaces -- > it took only about another 2 months for me to figure out the mechanism > of gravity.) > Anyway, this morning's thinking continued thus: "I wonder if mpc's > mind, which is human like mine, would process that novel premise in > the same or a similar way that mine did. I think i will post this new > premise in one of my replies to his messages." > So, although i'd posted it before, including where I got this > "extraterrestrial" premise, here it is again. > > MPC! LET THE AETHER BE COMPRESSIBLE. > It is compressible, when it transitions into 'matter'. What you want is aether to have the property of 'density'. Explain to me what aether 'density' gets you that aether 'pressure' does not. > glird > > > Matter displaces the > > aether. The displaced aether pushes back. The interaction of a moving > > object with the aether is frictionless, or the friction is negligible. > > This occurs for the nuclei of atoms just as it does for the Earth itself. > >
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 23:00 On Dec 19, 10:39 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/19/09 9:34 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > "space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein > > Einstein says, "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will > prove to be superfluous inasmuch..." > > By A. Einstein > June 30, 1905 > > It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the > present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which > do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the > reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The > observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the > conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp > distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other > of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the > conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an > electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at > the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet > is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in > the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an > electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding > energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in > the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and > intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. > > Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' > suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics > possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They > suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of > small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be > valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics > hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will > hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a > postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only > apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always > propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two > postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory > of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for > stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will > prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will > not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special > properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space > in which electromagnetic processes take place. "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space''" What Einstein was referring to when he says the aether is not required to be an 'absolutely stationary space' he followed up on: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The "state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment. What is it about the modified Einstein Train gedanken that scares you so much? Why are you avoiding it? Water is at rest with respect to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel from A and B to M'?
From: Michael Moroney on 19 Dec 2009 23:05 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 18, 11:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> You didn't answer the question. Do you make up your so-called theory as >> you go along, are you simply clueless or are you just another relativity >> k00k? >The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes >occur at A/A' and B/B'. >Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel >from A and B to M'? OK. I put you down under "totally clueless".
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 23:07 On Dec 19, 10:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 8:53 pm, mpc755 wrote:> On Dec 19, 4:31 pm, glird wrote: > >< Contrary to my expectation that nothing would happen to clocks at rest inside a closed chamber in which THE LOCAL MEDIUM (air) WAS AT > > REST, the clock flown in the same direction as Earth's surface moves > ran slowest, the one flown in the opposite direction ran fastest, and > the third one's rate was somewhere in between. > [snip] > So, mpc, how do YOU explain the Pan Am experiment? > > > > > >< The Pan Am flights are flying in both directions against the aether which is entrained by the Earth. > > > Slow down, mpc, and think a bit longer before replying. If both Pan > Am planes were flying (at identical speeds) through a medium at rest > to earth, then how come they didn't both slow down identically > relative to a clock that remained stationary on the ground? > I don't know if I would say the aether is at rest with respect to the Earth. The aether is entrained by the Earth. The aether is entrained by the Earth and travels with respect to the Earth's rotation. The further away from the surface of the earth you get, the more the aether 'lags'. Similar to a hurricane, whirlpool, or vortex. When the plane flies east to west it has more of an aether 'headwind' and when it flies west to east it has more of a 'tailwind'. When the plane flies east to west consider the plane to be flying 'against' the aether and when it flies west to each consider the plane to be flying 'with' the aether. > ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment > > "If the Earth is traveling through an ether medium, a beam reflecting > back and forth parallel to the flow of ether would take longer than a > beam reflecting perpendicular to the ether because the time gained > from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind." > > > Right answer; wrong reason. {The downwind time for a ray to travel > x = 1 unit of distance > would be x/(c+v) and the upwind time would be > x/(c-v), so if v = .8c it would take 5/9 second for the downwind time > and 5 seconds for the upwind time; so -- because it would take 1 > second each way if the medium and Earth co-moved, the time gained from > traveling downwind IS less than that lost traveling upwind. That, > however, isn't WHY a beam reflecting back and forth would take longer > than a beam reflecting perpendicularly.) > > >< When the atomic clock {is} on the Pan Am flight east to west it is flying against the entrained aether and when it is flying west to east it is flying with the entrained aether. > > > I see you DID slow down and reconsider your reply. Please pardon my > prior instantaneous remark after you said, "The Pan Am flights are > flying in both directions against the aether which is entrained by the > Earth." > > ><The downwind and upwind effect is going to have a greater effect on the atom's oscillations when flying against the entrained aether. > > > What's that have to do with the expectation that the total two-way > time, downwind + upwind, would take longer than the total two-way time > perpendicularly? > The clock 'ticks' slower east to west than it does west to east due to its interaction with the aether. The plane flying east to west has more of a 'headwind' against the aether then the plane flying west to east. Perpendicular has nothing to do with it. Perpendicular was part of the MMX quote describing how stuff is effected the more it moves with and against the aether. > >< This means the effects of aether, even though being displaced by the plane, must still be going through the plane. The reason momentum can be conserved even with aether flowing through matter is the same as the reason momentum is conserved by the Earth. > > > I woke up this morning thinking, "Mpc seems to be thinking exactly > what I was 55 years ago, when the voice in the middle of my head said, > 'Jerry! Let matter be compressible'." > (I'd been trying to figure out the mechanism of gravity; and was > thinking in terms of a universally stationary ether made of > infinitesimally small INcompressible bits through which ponderable > atomic matter flew at various velocities. Given the brand new basic > premise -- which ultimately canceled the kinetic-atomic-theory that > ALL matter is made of ultimate particles seperated by empty spaces -- > it took only about another 2 months for me to figure out the mechanism > of gravity.) > Anyway, this morning's thinking continued thus: "I wonder if mpc's > mind, which is human like mine, would process that novel premise in > the same or a similar way that mine did. I think i will post this new > premise in one of my replies to his messages." > So, although i'd posted it before, including where I got this > "extraterrestrial" premise, here it is again. > > MPC! LET THE AETHER BE COMPRESSIBLE. > It is compressible, when it transitions into 'matter'. What you want is aether to have the property of 'density'. Explain to me what aether 'density' gets you that aether 'pressure' does not. > glird > > > Matter displaces the > > aether. The displaced aether pushes back. The interaction of a moving > > object with the aether is frictionless, or the friction is negligible. > > This occurs for the nuclei of atoms just as it does for the Earth itself. > > GLIRD! SWITCH TO GOOGLE GROUPS!
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 23:11
On Dec 19, 11:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 18, 11:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> You didn't answer the question. Do you make up your so-called theory as > >> you go along, are you simply clueless or are you just another relativity > >> k00k? > >The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes > >occur at A/A' and B/B'. > >Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel > >from A and B to M'? > > OK. I put you down under "totally clueless". Another poster afraid to answer the modified Einstein Train gedanken. This is a pattern. The water is at rest with respect to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel from A and B to M'? |