| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Laurent" |
| Date: |
26 May 2007 01:34:03 PM |
| Object: |
Re: What is the Aether? |
On May 26, 12:08 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 26, 3:20 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180156491.354324.46840@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: On May 25, 8:44 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: >
: >news:1180138177.328165.199600@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: > : On May 25, 6:54 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : > "RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : >news:1180135320.277919.306230@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: > : > : On May 25, 5:48 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > : > : > On May 25, 6:27 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics>
wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > > "Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > : > : >
: > : > : > >news:1180131237.076224.102260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
: > : > : > > : On May 25, 5:13 pm, wrote:
: > : > : > > : > On 24 mei, 23:31, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > : > : > > : >
: > : > : > > : > > The aether is simply the space between two points.
: > : > : > > : > > Laurent
: > : > : > > : >
: > : > : > > : > It is very simple.
: > : > : > > : > Take 2 points in space, the ears for example.
: > : > : > > : > Some say there is nothing in between,
: > : > : > > : > and some say there is something there.
: > : > : > > : > ;-)
: > : > : > > :
: > : > : > > :
: > : > : > > : Well, like I said to Uncle Al, what would you prefer to call
the
: > : > space
: > : > : > > : between particles?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > > "space", "nothing", "void", "emptiness", "zilch" and all
synonyms
: > : > thereof.
: > : > : > > "that which has no properties whatsoever"
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Cool. I often call it empty space.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > But I agree with Einstein in that it does have physical
properties.-
: > : > Hide quoted text -
: > : > :
: > : > : I went to the store the other day and picked up a bag of nothing.
I
: > : > : cooked it up for dinner, but upon swallowing it my stomach
imploded. I
: > : > : concluded that space is good to have inside your stomach, and
: > : > : something different than nothing.
: > : >
: > : > Facetiousness aside, A TV tube or CRT contains no-thing even if it
has
: > : > an electron beam, two triangular magnetic fields and a static
electric
: > field
: > : > when operating, and I'm not calling it aether, either (or other).
: > :
: > : Is an em field nothing?
: >
: > Don't interrupt to nit-pick, read the fucking paragraph.
: >
: > : > The "no-thing" has no physical properties, I can deflect, increase
and
: > : > decrease the beam current solely by changing the external fields,
and I
: > do.
: > :
: > : Are the electrons moving external to the tube?
: >
: > Don't interrupt to nit-pick, read the fucking paragraph.
: >
: > :
: > : > If this were not so you'd have no football to watch, just a blank
screen
: > : > and have to go out and buy a plasma or LCD TV.
: > :
: > : Right, if there were nothing in the tube I'd be watching an implosion.
: > :
: > TV tubes implode when you break them, idiot.
:
: If space were nothing, then there would be nothing to break. Space is
: extension, and extension is a property of matter. Descartes almost had
: the answer. Einstein completed the argument for him. Space and field
: are one and the same, and field is a property of matter.
:
: >
: > : >
: > : > Someday some bright young spark will operate a projection TV on
: > : > the Moon (or ISS) without a glass envelope to keep out the air
because
: > : > he's bored with no-thing to do and the ancient art of glass-blowing
: > : > will be lost to antiquity.
: > : >
: > : > If the fool wants to agree with Einstein he can go without TV,
: > : > the aether wind will blow away the electron beam as the Moon
: > : > races through it.
: > :
: > : Whatever name you wish to apply to the equations that best simulate
: > : reality, the workings of the TV are not (1)
: > : dependent upon that name, nor (2)
: > : even upon those equations. Physics is not (3)
: > the master of the universe,
: > : it is subject to nature's mandates.
: > :
: > : If it isn't (4)
: > : testable, it isn't (5)
: > : physics. That's the bottom line.
: > : Everything else is opinion.
: >
: > You are almost as good as Blind Poe and Phuckwit Duck at opinionating
: > what things are not. Aether was testable, Michelson did it. Failed.
: > TV having become technology, passed.
: >
: > Aether is no longer testable, it isn't physics.
: >
: > The same goes for Einstein's crackpottery, Ring Laser Gyroscopes
: > work.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
: >
: > If it isn't testable, it isn't physics. That's the bottom line.
: > Everything else is opinion.
: >
: > All "one-speed-of light-only" crackpots are crazy, whatever their
religion.
:
: Unfortunately other models niether account for all of the data, nor
: are they derived from anything other than wild speculation.
*****.
:
: The c+v model assumes that nothing (your version of empty space) has
: the property of producing the effect of inertia and of holding beams
: of light on specific paths, while simultanesouly having no properties.
: So your space is a propertyless nothing that has specific properties.
: Absurd.
Oh, I see. So if there wasn't any aether a bullet from a gun would not hold
its path.
You are psychotic. Go away.
Ok, you're one of those aether crackpots right? Now how does that
feel
having someone cite you as saying something you didn't?
There is no aether, but there is a metric, and the metric certainly
corresponds to something tangible, or else there would be no straight
lines for a mass to move along in a force-free region of space, and
no
curved lines in a region with a non-neutral field.
An E field deflects an electron. Exept for the field there is no
other
cause of the change in path of the electron. The E field is thus a
modified region of space. There must however be something there to
modify, eh?
Another option is that the electron is deflected by other point
particles, and these other point particles simulate the presence of a
field. Problem with that theory is that there is no longer a
mechanism
for the interaction between particles, nor is there even a source for
their existence.
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
Introduction
Einstein presented a different notion of the universe with his 1920
essay "Ether and the Theory of Relativity". What he termed the
'gravitational ether' came from a completely different idea. Motion
and particulation, he said, can't be applied as properties of the
aether because it is one and has no components. This oneness can be
used to explain action at a distance and inertia.
CMBR is material, and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial.
First there needs to be an aether before we can have fields,
spacetime, matter or a CMBR.
Physical because it helps determine ratios like the permittivity and
permeability of free space. Ratios on which the existence and behavior
of all fields entirely depend. Without fields you can't have any type
of matter/particle. And immaterial because it lacks properties like
extension or motion, it does not move and it has no parts or
components in the material sense.
Extension is a material property not applicable to the aether. Density
is also a non-applicable property when defining the aether, it is only
applicable when describing matter. Space (CMBR) is material. Space and
matter are inseparable, and properties like density and extension do
apply.
Einstein's Gravitational Aether is the background, it is physical but
immaterial, it lacks any landmarks, therefore the Universe, in a
material sense, is background free. There isn't an absolute time
because there is no preferred frame.
Einstein's Aether is more akin to Newton's absolute space than most
people think (this is why he sees it as background free), but it is
imbued with Mach's reciprocity between matter and space, and
relativation. It is Newton's absolute space mixed with Mach's aether.
The reason that, in Einstein's spacetime, frames must be related is
because it all comes from a single entity, reality is one single
process. All frames within the observable universe are related through
the aether. All frames depend, in every way, on the aether.
Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the
description of a whole where objects are physically dependent on each
other. In other words, if an object could be conceived to be
accelerating in a perfectly empty void, independently from any object
or frame of reference, it could not experience any changes in time or
length, but because objects are embedded in a continuous field, a
metric which represents the whole, and because the whole's energy is
finite, objects exhibit relativistic effects in relation to each
other. Because the propagation speed of fields (and light) is not
relative (frame independent), and because of wholeness, homogeneity
and a physical need to abide by the laws of thermodynamics, we have
covariance.
This is probably what triggered Einstein's interest in Bohm's
'undivided wholeness'. He understood that for there to be a continuum,
and for Relativity to hold, the Universe must be conceived as a whole.
He eventually became a Pantheist, he simply saw no other choice. Why
else would an object's dimensions depend on its surroundings if it
wasn't for this wholeness?
If the aether were not physically finite, then why must we include
covariance when describing the motion of a material system under
acceleration? The aether is a physically finite substance, but is
spatially unbounded. If the aether were not physically finite, then
why would the equivalency principle be necessary when describing the
motion of a material system under acceleration? Still, it can be
conceived as infinitely divisible, or indivisible; simply because it
is immaterial. Space (CMBR) is material and spatially bounded, in
other words, you can speak about space in terms of size and
separation. Because the aether is physically finite, matter is also
finite, but infinite as a function of time and transformation. Nature
is the perpetual motion machine.
But we have to be careful with meanings here. What Einstein was
referring to as 'empty space' is more akin to nothingness than the
empty space we usually talk about. Remember that at the time Einstein
wrote "The Ether and the Theory of Relativity" QED was probably only a
crackpot's dream. He thought that, in order to obtain an empty space,
it was possible to extract all matter from a given volume. It wasn't
until Timothy Boyer that we began to understand the different meanings
of 'empty space'.
We must not to confuse the concept of space outlined by QED with
Einstein's gravitational aether. CMBR is an observable material
phenomena with mechanical properties like density and pressure. The
gravitational aether is a physical but, non-material, non-measurable,
non-observable, yet very real substance.
Problems arise when you fail to grasp the notion, which arises from
Relativity, that Einstein's space doesn't exist by itself, neither
does time nor matter. Space is an extension of matter. Space tells
matter what to do, and matter tells space what to do, they can't exist
independently from each other. Matter and space are one and the same,
and time is just a product arising from the process and activity it
takes to in-form and create reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gravity
CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. Like
light, also known as EMR, which are considered particles, and ZPR,
also considered particles, but of a very different nature.
What I call aether is before this material space, it is what Einstein
called 'the gravitational ether'.
What I call space (sometimes material space) is not the same as what
19th century and early 20th century physicists called space (now
called 'the classical vacuum'). Back then there were no CMBR, nor
Wheeler's quantum foam. That's why Einstein couldn't conciliate
Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Today, space is considered to be
material, a collection of small particles which many now call dark
matter (CMBR). That's why modern physics now say that space is grainy.
Gravity occurs as a result of drag caused by material space (quantum
matter), as concentric matter waves constantly flow into matter as
quantum matter (space) condenses and crystallizes to its objective
state (particulate or rock like state).
Space particles (dark matter) are carried by matter-selective,
inwardly flowing quanta, in an electrical current. Just like electrons
are moved by electromotive forces. Now, if material space is made from
particles, then it may be subject to changes in pressure and density,
like a gas. Therefore, if space particles carried by matter waves
continuously condense into material objects, that would mean that the
closer you get to the object, the denser space would become as a
function of the object's mass and radius, explaining why gravitic
pressure, as described in flowing space theories, also obeys the
inverse square law.
The gravitational field, as described by Einstein, is continuos, what
is quantized is the CMBR. As morphic fields (as well as other fields)
surrounding rotating bodies cut through the CMBR, there is a friction
which creates matter-waves, just as EMR is created when you shake an
electron. These matter-waves, or matter selective quanta, are pulled
in by an electromotive force orthogonal to the direction of rotation
of bodies, inwardly pulling ZPR particles (which are components of the
total make up of the CMBR) to the center of the system. This process
depends on the characteristics of the matter-waves, which in turn
depend on the characteristics of the rotating body. This model
explains why some planets have greater concentrations of some elements
than others.
Gravity is caused by this space flow. Picture two bodies, like the
Earth and the Moon, now imagine space flowing into the Earth and into
the Moon at the same time, that's what causes gravitation. Because
there is a flow going in opposite directions, and material space's
density decreases, there is a drop in pressure, making objects and the
material space around them to drift towards the lower pressure region
as pressure tries to equalize itself. That's how we get tide movement;
the Moon casts a shadow, so to speak, causing gravitic pressure to
drop between the two bodies, consequently making the sea level to rise
where the shadow was casted.
Inertia
"Reality is not about things, it is about process" -------- Lee Smolin
Inertia, as conceived by Galileo, meant a resistance to change, and
process is synonymous to change. Reality is process and gravity and
inertia are products of this process. Inertia is the result of 'aether
drag', a resistance to change in space flow rate, into and from the
particle, as the particle moves through space/medium.
Inertia comes from the tension or 'informational lag' created by a
system as it changes its rate of space/information flow, or... as it
accelerates within the chaotic medium, not from particles colliding
against accelerating objects. It is a momentum/information exchange,
through EMR, between a particle and space, as they continuously need
to reset their spatial relationships in order for thermodynamic laws
to hold as required by the Equivalency Principle. (Unruh-Davies
radiation and Timothy Boyer's 'equilibrium spectrum' )
While a particle is moving at a constant speed and all the geometrical
parameters are set, it won't experience any inertial forces, but as it
accelerates and the relationships change, it needs to keep adjusting
to its new energy/space consumption settings. That's why relativistic
effects are so real. When accelerated in relation to other particles,
space shrinks, time slows down and mass (process) grows within the
particle to balance energy usage in momentum space and maintain its
dependence and relation to spacetime in accordance to energy
conservation laws.
There is a delay as matter reaches thermal equilibrium with its
surroundings. We experience it as inertia. This is the nature of
Timothy Boyer's 'equilibrium spectrum'. It takes time for any moving
object to reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, as it jumps
from frame to frame in spacetime! Each frame being, in reality, marked
by the collapse of each matter wave-front, like a quantum clock, as
inwardly flowing matter-waves bring within them some of the
information necessary for each quantization, before completing each
objective state. Each object having its own rate, its own wavelength,
or, its own pulse, so to speak.
Information about a material system must be contained within the
system, it doesn't come from anywhere else in space. The only external
information being brought to the system by EM waves is the momentum
and the location of the particle in relation to the world. And this
system must be comprised by a particle and its particular inwardly
flowing, concentric, spherical matter-waves. Thus, gravitation may be
viewed as drag caused by radial space/information flow. Information
which is picked and organized by concentric waves as space is
condensed into the particle/system. But the parts (not the
information) to construct and maintain the system intact, as it moves
through the medium, come from the chaotic hyperspace. CMBR is in
charge of communications. Also, CMBR is the material space from where
that new geometrical information is created and incorporated into the
system as it moves through spacetime. ZPF is the prime matter with
which volumes are created.
Gravitation is caused by radial space/information flow. As space from
hyperspace is converted to spacetime and matter by an autopoietic
process which is driven by Logic (Syntax and Topology) and the laws of
thermodynamics. Mass is caused by the continuos internal process
occurring within matter as space/information radially flows towards
the center of all matter as it precipitates from hyperspace into
spacetime. Mass and inertia are by-products of a quantum mechanical
process where a drag force is created by the continuos inwardly flow
of space/information into matter. Mass is equivalent to process. And
we only have mass in spacetime after particles are fully formed.
Mass
Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and
the space in which it sits. Matter is a continuos - time dependent -
self-organizing process. Particles, as they move through the CMBR,
need to continuously re-ordinate the space that constitutes them.
Particles are in constant motion, continuously processing space/
information. Matter arises from this process, and mass increases
directly proportional to the amount of process. This is why the denser
a particle is, or the faster it moves in a given frame of reference,
the more massive it becomes.
When a particle is moving at a constant rate there is no informational
lag created by space/information flow within the particle, its spatial
energetic relationships remain constant, but as the particle is
accelerated the energetic relations between the particle and space
will be in a constant state of change causing this space/information
flow tension we call inertia.
There are matter waves and EMR between you and everything around you
flowing towards and outwards everything, including yourself. EMR
'bounces' off, picking and transmitting information regarding each
surrounding object's objective state, while matter waves flow
inwardly, towards each object, also bringing information about the
environment, as objects continuously crystallize into spacetime.
Each object, according to its own material properties, will
consequently exhibit its own inertial properties, like its own weight
and momentum.
The objective state of an object is instantaneously and holistically
transferred to the whole object, including its matter-wave, through
space, as a non-local, non-linear function, by a mechanism of wave
superpositions. This non-locality is possible thanks to the aether's
oneness.
.
|
|
| User: "Jimmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
28 May 2007 04:56:12 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 2:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
Gravity
CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. Like
light, also known as EMR, which are considered particles, and ZPR,
also considered particles, but of a very different nature.
What I call aether is before this material space, it is what Einstein
called 'the gravitational ether'.
What I call space (sometimes material space) is not the same as what
19th century and early 20th century physicists called space (now
called 'the classical vacuum'). Back then there were no CMBR, nor
Wheeler's quantum foam. That's why Einstein couldn't conciliate
Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Today, space is considered to be
material, a collection of small particles which many now call dark
matter (CMBR). That's why modern physics now say that space is grainy.
Gravity occurs as a result of drag caused by material space (quantum
matter), as concentric matter waves constantly flow into matter as
quantum matter (space) condenses and crystallizes to its objective
state (particulate or rock like state).
I think I have detected the source of your confusion all
these years. You underestimated the power of reality
and mathematics to be intertwined. What General
Relativity is saying is simply these which someone
has summarized in very clear words.
"Gravity, as the theory goes, is a curvature in space
and time. A particle sitting stationary in space is still
going forward in time, and the curvature sort of tells
you how much the particle is deflected into a spatial
direction when it does that."
So the reason our bodies are on the ground of earth
is because as our bodies move forward in time, the
curvature of spacetime tells how much our bodies
are deflected into a spatial direction which is the
ground of earth."
Using General Relativity. One can model Black Holes
and other cosmic objects such as gravitional lensing.
You can't even go near it with your aether version of
gravity. It's most likely there is no Aether and the
physical world is a unique place where mathematic
laws that is possible determine reality. You can
say that the physical world is the aether but this
is silly. Come on, drop off the aether thing. It doesn't
make any sense if you look at it hard.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
20 Jun 2007 01:28:25 PM |
|
|
"It's most likely there is no Aether and the
physical world is a unique place where mathematic
laws that is possible determine reality"
sure?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
29 May 2007 09:03:28 AM |
|
|
On May 28, 5:56 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 27, 2:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
Gravity
CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. Like
light, also known as EMR, which are considered particles, and ZPR,
also considered particles, but of a very different nature.
What I call aether is before this material space, it is what Einstein
called 'the gravitational ether'.
What I call space (sometimes material space) is not the same as what
19th century and early 20th century physicists called space (now
called 'the classical vacuum'). Back then there were no CMBR, nor
Wheeler's quantum foam. That's why Einstein couldn't conciliate
Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Today, space is considered to be
material, a collection of small particles which many now call dark
matter (CMBR). That's why modern physics now say that space is grainy.
Gravity occurs as a result of drag caused by material space (quantum
matter), as concentric matter waves constantly flow into matter as
quantum matter (space) condenses and crystallizes to its objective
state (particulate or rock like state).
I think I have detected the source of your confusion all
these years. You underestimated the power of reality
and mathematics to be intertwined. What General
Relativity is saying is simply these which someone
has summarized in very clear words.
"Gravity, as the theory goes, is a curvature in space
and time. A particle sitting stationary in space is still
going forward in time, and the curvature sort of tells
you how much the particle is deflected into a spatial
direction when it does that."
So the reason our bodies are on the ground of earth
is because as our bodies move forward in time, the
curvature of spacetime tells how much our bodies
are deflected into a spatial direction which is the
ground of earth."
Using General Relativity. One can model Black Holes
and other cosmic objects such as gravitional lensing.
You can't even go near it with your aether version of
gravity. It's most likely there is no Aether and the
physical world is a unique place where mathematic
laws that is possible determine reality. You can
say that the physical world is the aether but this
is silly. Come on, drop off the aether thing. It doesn't
make any sense if you look at it hard.
J.
First, what is the central infinite processor?
And I stil subscribe to space flow theories. Which one? I don't have a
specific one but I believe they are on the right track.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
29 May 2007 09:04:37 AM |
|
|
On May 28, 5:56 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 27, 2:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
Gravity
CMBR is a mix of the particles that make up material space. Like
light, also known as EMR, which are considered particles, and ZPR,
also considered particles, but of a very different nature.
What I call aether is before this material space, it is what Einstein
called 'the gravitational ether'.
What I call space (sometimes material space) is not the same as what
19th century and early 20th century physicists called space (now
called 'the classical vacuum'). Back then there were no CMBR, nor
Wheeler's quantum foam. That's why Einstein couldn't conciliate
Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Today, space is considered to be
material, a collection of small particles which many now call dark
matter (CMBR). That's why modern physics now say that space is grainy.
Gravity occurs as a result of drag caused by material space (quantum
matter), as concentric matter waves constantly flow into matter as
quantum matter (space) condenses and crystallizes to its objective
state (particulate or rock like state).
I think I have detected the source of your confusion all
these years. You underestimated the power of reality
and mathematics to be intertwined. What General
Relativity is saying is simply these which someone
has summarized in very clear words.
"Gravity, as the theory goes, is a curvature in space
and time. A particle sitting stationary in space is still
going forward in time, and the curvature sort of tells
you how much the particle is deflected into a spatial
direction when it does that."
So the reason our bodies are on the ground of earth
is because as our bodies move forward in time, the
curvature of spacetime tells how much our bodies
are deflected into a spatial direction which is the
ground of earth."
Using General Relativity. One can model Black Holes
and other cosmic objects such as gravitional lensing.
You can't even go near it with your aether version of
gravity. It's most likely there is no Aether and the
physical world is a unique place where mathematic
laws that is possible determine reality. You can
say that the physical world is the aether but this
is silly. Come on, drop off the aether thing. It doesn't
make any sense if you look at it hard.
J.
Look, as I have been saying, you can't deny there is space between
particles, right?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
27 May 2007 08:28:15 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 2:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 12:08 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
Inertia
<snip>
While a particle is moving at a constant speed and
all the geometrical parameters are set, it won't
experience any inertial forces, but as it
accelerates and the relationships change, it needs
to keep adjusting to its new energy/space
consumption settings. That's why relativistic
effects are so real. When accelerated in relation
to other particles, space shrinks, time slows down
and mass (process) grows within the particle to
balance energy usage in momentum space and
maintain its dependence and relation to spacetime
in accordance to energy conservation laws.
I have 3 questions. First. You wrote above
that ".. time slows down, and mass (process)
grows WITHIN the particle" but isn't it that in
the concept of Special Relativity, a particle or
you or your ship doesn't experience any changes
even at near lightspeed. It is only the other person
(or thing) viewing you in another frame of reference that
would see your ship or particle as having length
contractions, time slowing down, etc. It doesn't
happen to your actual ship or particle. What do
you say about this.
2. Second question. How do you model the double
slit experiment especially in the one photon (or
electron, etc.) at a time experiment. Why does the
particle interfere with itself. I think you
subscribe to the Pilot Wave of Bohm. Don't you.
What's the difference between yours compare to it?
How do you model QFT using Bohm or your equivalent
pilot wave?
3. Third and last. You mention the non-local
signal moves in the aether which knows no time nor
space so the information is simultaneous
everywhere in the universe. This means there is
possibility we can send information that is more
than the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics.
This means instantaneous information exchange
between two particles in separate frame of
reference. This means time travel is possible.
What is your view of this. Or could there be a no
time travel barrier somewhere here. I'd like to
know if there is such barrier because there is
really theoretical possibility of sending
information non-local via the Aether or whatever
pathway and I'm concern the time travel
consequences.
I hope you can answer this with your words and not
quoting an entire article in your collection.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
28 May 2007 05:20:02 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 10:28 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
3. Third and last. You mention the non-local
signal moves in the aether which knows no time nor
space so the information is simultaneous
everywhere in the universe. This means there is
possibility we can send information that is more
than the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics.
This means instantaneous information exchange
between two particles in separate frame of
reference. This means time travel is possible.
What is your view of this. Or could there be a no
time travel barrier somewhere here. I'd like to
know if there is such barrier because there is
really theoretical possibility of sending
information non-local via the Aether or whatever
pathway and I'm concern the time travel
consequences.
You are refering to evanescent or reactive near-field
components. These don't exist in violation of the
finte speed of light but rather as a direct result of
the finite speed of light. They don't move mass
or the energy equivalent so have no potential
for communication. Some study of nearfield geometry
is necessary to understand what their ~existence~
really means.
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
If you don't want to get that involved in antenna theory
you can simply dismiss the *apparent* superluminal
paths as something measured with an imaginary clock
and therefore just as imaginary as the apparent power
of a reactive induction motor.
http://www.sayedsaad.com/fundmental/666_Power%20in%20AC%20Circuits.%20.htm
Sue...
I hope you can answer this with your words and not
quoting an entire article in your collection.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
29 May 2007 08:56:53 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 9:28 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 27, 2:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 26, 12:08 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
Inertia
<snip>
While a particle is moving at a constant speed and
all the geometrical parameters are set, it won't
experience any inertial forces, but as it
accelerates and the relationships change, it needs
to keep adjusting to its new energy/space
consumption settings. That's why relativistic
effects are so real. When accelerated in relation
to other particles, space shrinks, time slows down
and mass (process) grows within the particle to
balance energy usage in momentum space and
maintain its dependence and relation to spacetime
in accordance to energy conservation laws.
I have 3 questions. First. You wrote above
that ".. time slows down, and mass (process)
grows WITHIN the particle" but isn't it that in
the concept of Special Relativity, a particle or
you or your ship doesn't experience any changes
even at near lightspeed. It is only the other person
(or thing) viewing you in another frame of reference that
would see your ship or particle as having length
contractions, time slowing down, etc. It doesn't
happen to your actual ship or particle. What do
you say about this.
2. Second question. How do you model the double
slit experiment especially in the one photon (or
electron, etc.) at a time experiment. Why does the
particle interfere with itself. I think you
subscribe to the Pilot Wave of Bohm. Don't you.
What's the difference between yours compare to it?
How do you model QFT using Bohm or your equivalent
pilot wave?
3. Third and last. You mention the non-local
signal moves in the aether which knows no time nor
space so the information is simultaneous
everywhere in the universe. This means there is
possibility we can send information that is more
than the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics.
This means instantaneous information exchange
between two particles in separate frame of
reference. This means time travel is possible.
What is your view of this. Or could there be a no
time travel barrier somewhere here. I'd like to
know if there is such barrier because there is
really theoretical possibility of sending
information non-local via the Aether or whatever
pathway and I'm concern the time travel
consequences.
I hope you can answer this with your words and not
quoting an entire article in your collection.
J.
When I said no time travel I was thinking about time machines, but
theoretically we could, that's what the Twins Paradox is all about,
but we just wouldn't be able to get back.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 01:07:12 AM |
|
|
Theoretically yes. Actually no. Time started by some people throwing
some silly rocks about the place. It is used to tell the part of day
we are in. To suggest that it is the 4th dimension is as insane as
suggesting that every atom of your being came from no-where.
Theoretically I am 27 years old. This is in birth years. This is
approx 27 years from the day that my senses came into being with the
material world. In actuality, every part of me is as old as the 'big
bang' and whatever came before that. Unless, Tesla did make a real
transported man as depicted in the film the prestige, and I was
created by a machine which used the aether to make a copy of
something. Nonsense right ? The distance to the big bang is currently
measured in earth rotations around the sun. This seems inaccurate to
me. 4.6 billion years = number of days etc.
In actuality there is movement. We can see it so it exists. There is
also speed and we can see that too. If you remove time from physics
you resolve every paradox. But time is a useful model to explain many
things in every aspect of reality, like speed etc. So there is actual
physics and theoretical physics.
Try not to lose sight of the actualities because they will keep us in
check. It would also solve allot of arguments and people could work
together on problems. If we observe the earth as a body that rotates
around the sun, then physics should resolve itself always according to
what is observed rather than being jammed up in old frameworks. There
is always a new framework available. I am optimistic in this respect.
How do we proceed ?
I want to see more virtual models of the solar system working in 3
dimensional software. You can use all the values you know, mass, force
acceleration etc. All of it. You may not require a model for time to
produce this. As far as I am aware certain modeling languages
do not require time as a value. They will be relative in some way to
the pc clock, so an autonomy process will be required for the
software. After-all, it is not an animation that you want to produce.
You want to test real theories. The frictionless ability of 3d
modeling software is a great start.
My suggestion is to start from a very basic theory like my own. i.e.
Space is the host to place as place is the host to space.
As a start; place moving in space will need to be frictionless.
Whoever does this and makes these models available/purchasable by the
public will by a physics HERO in my opinion. If you do, try and keep
the model open, that way you can exchange models rather than having
arguments about sprinkled words etc.
Place moving in place will be with friction depending on the
densities. Use the density of water, use the density of air. I mean,
this should have been done as early as the 90's.
-y
When I said no time travel I was thinking about time machines, but
theoretically we could, that's what the Twins Paradox is all about,
but we just wouldn't be able to get back.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 05:27:49 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 2:07 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Theoretically yes. Actually no. Time started by some people throwing
some silly rocks about the place. It is used to tell the part of day
we are in. To suggest that it is the 4th dimension is as insane as
suggesting that every atom of your being came from no-where.
Hey, it is insane but true, every atom of our being came from
no-where. Before the singularity in the Big Bang, there was no
such thing as "place". There was no space because space
or more accurately spacetime is a child of the Big Bang.
It inflated like balloon. So for all intent and purposes, every
atom of our being came from no-where. In planck time
after the Big Bang. Remember that atoms didn't even exist.
All is simply energy (remember the pair creation and annihilations
in high energy photon experiment). Only when it cools down that
we can say matter form slowly.
J.
Theoretically I am 27 years old. This is in birth years. This is
approx 27 years from the day that my senses came into being with the
material world. In actuality, every part of me is as old as the 'big
bang' and whatever came before that. Unless, Tesla did make a real
transported man as depicted in the film the prestige, and I was
created by a machine which used the aether to make a copy of
something. Nonsense right ? The distance to the big bang is currently
measured in earth rotations around the sun. This seems inaccurate to
me. 4.6 billion years = number of days etc.
In actuality there is movement. We can see it so it exists. There is
also speed and we can see that too. If you remove time from physics
you resolve every paradox. But time is a useful model to explain many
things in every aspect of reality, like speed etc. So there is actual
physics and theoretical physics.
Try not to lose sight of the actualities because they will keep us in
check. It would also solve allot of arguments and people could work
together on problems. If we observe the earth as a body that rotates
around the sun, then physics should resolve itself always according to
what is observed rather than being jammed up in old frameworks. There
is always a new framework available. I am optimistic in this respect.
How do we proceed ?
I want to see more virtual models of the solar system working in 3
dimensional software. You can use all the values you know, mass, force
acceleration etc. All of it. You may not require a model for time to
produce this. As far as I am aware certain modeling languages
do not require time as a value. They will be relative in some way to
the pc clock, so an autonomy process will be required for the
software. After-all, it is not an animation that you want to produce.
You want to test real theories. The frictionless ability of 3d
modeling software is a great start.
My suggestion is to start from a very basic theory like my own. i.e.
Space is the host to place as place is the host to space.
As a start; place moving in space will need to be frictionless.
Whoever does this and makes these models available/purchasable by the
public will by a physics HERO in my opinion. If you do, try and keep
the model open, that way you can exchange models rather than having
arguments about sprinkled words etc.
Place moving in place will be with friction depending on the
densities. Use the density of water, use the density of air. I mean,
this should have been done as early as the 90's.
-y
When I said no time travel I was thinking about time machines, but
theoretically we could, that's what the Twins Paradox is all about,
but we just wouldn't be able to get back.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 01:16:31 AM |
|
|
Well, the singularity is a theory for starters. If it is true, then
its classification as a place or a space is paradoxical since it has
infinite density and no volume. It's fair enough. People need to
understand a beginning, even if that beginning defies the concept of
infinity which comes as a comfortable idea in the early stages of
childhood.
Do you know how many people still think the earth is flat ? Millions
of people. I have asked this question to most of the people around me
and my idiot meter always goes beserko.
Q: What would be the shortest distance from Brisbane to Sydney ?
A: A Tunnel.
What is seemingly paradoxical is that the quicker you get there is the
REAL shortest distance. And it is, but the final answer is NOT a
paradox. It is also ^more real.
A: A tunnel at the quickest possible speed. (fast as a jet plane).
Nevertheless what we think of as time in actuality has a zero rate of
change. The biggest lesson I have learned in my studies is that it is
the placement of the model that is important.
If you ask anyone where time comes from, most people will say 'the
sun' and they are right. So; replace the model that was placed 2000
years ago. Put a (z) line down the center of the sun. Then, put an (x)
and (y) intersecting at the center of the suns mass, and what you have
is a 3 dimensional graph. Then; place a dot away from that center and
you have 'Earth'. Then; draw a circle around that representing the
earths orbit. The graph will plainly show that 'time' as far as we can
place it, has an elliptical rate of change. I'd go so far as to say
that the ellipse is irrelevant and that the rate of change from the
center of earth to the center of the sun is ACTUALLY zero.
Does anyone here suggest that the sun and the Earth are not a 3
dimensional collection of placements ? Who really cares a about space
time curvature ? Relativity is always and only true of the clock
(depending on the kind of clock). A digital clock experiment will show
a different time dilation to a grandfather clock experiment.
-y
Theoretically yes. Actually no. Time started by some people throwing
some silly rocks about the place. It is used to tell the part of day
we are in. To suggest that it is the 4th dimension is as insane as
suggesting that every atom of your being came from no-where.
Hey, it is insane but true, every atom of our being came from
no-where. Before the singularity in the Big Bang, there was no
such thing as "place". There was no space because space
or more accurately spacetime is a child of the Big Bang.
It inflated like balloon. So for all intent and purposes, every
atom of our being came from no-where. In planck time
after the Big Bang. Remember that atoms didn't even exist.
All is simply energy (remember the pair creation and annihilations
in high energy photon experiment). Only when it cools down that
we can say matter form slowly.
J.
Theoretically I am 27 years old. This is in birth years. This is
approx 27 years from the day that my senses came into being with the
material world. In actuality, every part of me is as old as the 'big
bang' and whatever came before that. Unless, Tesla did make a real
transported man as depicted in the film the prestige, and I was
created by a machine which used the aether to make a copy of
something. Nonsense right ? The distance to the big bang is currently
measured in earth rotations around the sun. This seems inaccurate to
me. 4.6 billion years = number of days etc.
In actuality there is movement. We can see it so it exists. There is
also speed and we can see that too. If you remove time from physics
you resolve every paradox. But time is a useful model to explain many
things in every aspect of reality, like speed etc. So there is actual
physics and theoretical physics.
Try not to lose sight of the actualities because they will keep us in
check. It would also solve allot of arguments and people could work
together on problems. If we observe the earth as a body that rotates
around the sun, then physics should resolve itself always according to
what is observed rather than being jammed up in old frameworks. There
is always a new framework available. I am optimistic in this respect.
How do we proceed ?
I want to see more virtual models of the solar system working in 3
dimensional software. You can use all the values you know, mass, force
acceleration etc. All of it. You may not require a model for time to
produce this. As far as I am aware certain modeling languages
do not require time as a value. They will be relative in some way to
the pc clock, so an autonomy process will be required for the
software. After-all, it is not an animation that you want to produce.
You want to test real theories. The frictionless ability of 3d
modeling software is a great start.
My suggestion is to start from a very basic theory like my own. i.e.
Space is the host to place as place is the host to space.
As a start; place moving in space will need to be frictionless.
Whoever does this and makes these models available/purchasable by the
public will by a physics HERO in my opinion. If you do, try and keep
the model open, that way you can exchange models rather than having
arguments about sprinkled words etc.
Place moving in place will be with friction depending on the
densities. Use the density of water, use the density of air. I mean,
this should have been done as early as the 90's.
-y
When I said no time travel I was thinking about time machines, but
theoretically we could, that's what the Twins Paradox is all about,
but we just wouldn't be able to get back.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 02:00:57 AM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 2:16 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, the singularity is a theory for starters. If it is true, then
its classification as a place or a space is paradoxical since it has
infinite density and no volume. It's fair enough. People need to
understand a beginning, even if that beginning defies the concept of
infinity which comes as a comfortable idea in the early stages of
childhood.
Do you know how many people still think the earth is flat ? Millions
of people. I have asked this question to most of the people around me
and my idiot meter always goes beserko.
Q: What would be the shortest distance from Brisbane to Sydney ?
A: A Tunnel.
What is seemingly paradoxical is that the quicker you get there is the
REAL shortest distance. And it is, but the final answer is NOT a
paradox. It is also ^more real.
A: A tunnel at the quickest possible speed. (fast as a jet plane).
Nevertheless what we think of as time in actuality has a zero rate of
change. The biggest lesson I have learned in my studies is that it is
the placement of the model that is important.
If you ask anyone where time comes from, most people will say 'the
sun' and they are right. So; replace the model that was placed 2000
years ago. Put a (z) line down the center of the sun. Then, put an (x)
and (y) intersecting at the center of the suns mass, and what you have
is a 3 dimensional graph. Then; place a dot away from that center and
you have 'Earth'. Then; draw a circle around that representing the
earths orbit. The graph will plainly show that 'time' as far as we can
place it, has an elliptical rate of change. I'd go so far as to say
that the ellipse is irrelevant and that the rate of change from the
center of earth to the center of the sun is ACTUALLY zero.
Does anyone here suggest that the sun and the Earth are not a 3
dimensional collection of placements ? Who really cares a about space
time curvature ? Relativity is always and only true of the clock
(depending on the kind of clock). A digital clock experiment will show
a different time dilation to a grandfather clock experiment.
They use atomic clock and there is time dilation after travelling
in fast jet around the world. Atomic clock is the ultimate clock.
Well. I really want to know if there are energy processes to
the spacetime continuum. I mean. Could some aether (or
other) dynamics controlling the space-time interval and spacetime
metric be involved. If there are extra degree of freedom.
Then I can use the technology to control space and time and
I can inflate an extra mini space in my apartment much like
the Big Bang Inflating spacetime (note very carefully here
that before there was Big Bang, space has no concept or
form so the 3D is just one of the possible outputs. Other
space configurations can exist. This means it is possible
to blow up an extra space within spacetime if there are extra
degree of freedom (based on an Aether, etc. based principle).
In my extra space. It will be orthogonal to our Bush reference
space so I can enter it by some kind of portal. So if you have
a 200 square meter apartment. You can increase it to
300-500 sq. meters by adding a parallel space. Gets?
Investing in an Aether based Real Estate would have
good business potential. Our city are getting crowded, etc.
J.
Duh. Am I drunk? lol
-y
Theoretically yes. Actually no. Time started by some people throwing
some silly rocks about the place. It is used to tell the part of day
we are in. To suggest that it is the 4th dimension is as insane as
suggesting that every atom of your being came from no-where.
Hey, it is insane but true, every atom of our being came from
no-where. Before the singularity in the Big Bang, there was no
such thing as "place". There was no space because space
or more accurately spacetime is a child of the Big Bang.
It inflated like balloon. So for all intent and purposes, every
atom of our being came from no-where. In planck time
after the Big Bang. Remember that atoms didn't even exist.
All is simply energy (remember the pair creation and annihilations
in high energy photon experiment). Only when it cools down that
we can say matter form slowly.
J.
Theoretically I am 27 years old. This is in birth years. This is
approx 27 years from the day that my senses came into being with the
material world. In actuality, every part of me is as old as the 'big
bang' and whatever came before that. Unless, Tesla did make a real
transported man as depicted in the film the prestige, and I was
created by a machine which used the aether to make a copy of
something. Nonsense right ? The distance to the big bang is currently
measured in earth rotations around the sun. This seems inaccurate to
me. 4.6 billion years = number of days etc.
In actuality there is movement. We can see it so it exists. There is
also speed and we can see that too. If you remove time from physics
you resolve every paradox. But time is a useful model to explain many
things in every aspect of reality, like speed etc. So there is actual
physics and theoretical physics.
Try not to lose sight of the actualities because they will keep us in
check. It would also solve allot of arguments and people could work
together on problems. If we observe the earth as a body that rotates
around the sun, then physics should resolve itself always according to
what is observed rather than being jammed up in old frameworks. There
is always a new framework available. I am optimistic in this respect.
How do we proceed ?
I want to see more virtual models of the solar system working in 3
dimensional software. You can use all the values you know, mass, force
acceleration etc. All of it. You may not require a model for time to
produce this. As far as I am aware certain modeling languages
do not require time as a value. They will be relative in some way to
the pc clock, so an autonomy process will be required for the
software. After-all, it is not an animation that you want to produce.
You want to test real theories. The frictionless ability of 3d
modeling software is a great start.
My suggestion is to start from a very basic theory like my own. i.e.
Space is the host to place as place is the host to space.
As a start; place moving in space will need to be frictionless.
Whoever does this and makes these models available/purchasable by the
public will by a physics HERO in my opinion. If you do, try and keep
the model open, that way you can exchange models rather than having
arguments about sprinkled words etc.
Place moving in place will be with friction depending on the
densities. Use the density of water, use the density of air. I mean,
this should have been done as early as the 90's.
-y
When I said no time travel I was thinking about time machines, but
theoretically we could, that's what the Twins Paradox is all about,
but we just wouldn't be able to get back.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
'- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 04:43:28 AM |
|
|
Jimmer :
The clock, (regardless of the kind of clock) is an inertia meter. This
is what time dilation tells us of which I am certain. Both clocks are
existentially so regardless of the inertial frame and do not exist in
different 'times'. If time was dilating for every object what you have
is a chaos. The truth is, time only dilates for those who carry clocks
with them.
Time dilation is due to an energy transfer microcosm being placed in a
higher or lower inertial frame. Einsteins relativity does work, make
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.
If they placed the clock in Greenwich (the world meridian) into a
higher inertial frame, time would slow down for all clocks which
relied on that clock for data.
Therefore, TRUE Inertia is very different than what you would
calculate using old frameworks. It would also be different depending
on the size of the energy transfer system.
SO: Time is not Time. Time is really just time keeping - the way it
used to be. What I speak of is nothing new, except the fact that
certain schools have been pumping the idea of time into allot of
peoples minds.
A dimension is always a distance. A dimension must not be an invisible
thing. To use something invisible is insane. But people are always
taught to believe in invisible things - God, Santa, Easter Bunny and
so they are comfortable fantasies that we are brought up with.
Look at all the insanity these fantasies cause !
As you move around you see things, and you have a memory. Its part of
the fact that things are always taking place. Some, call this time,
and this is acceptable. But it is not appropriate in relativistic
physics. Practical physics yes. But that is all. Physics lives and
dies with Newton. It stops with Einstein as borderline insane. The
rest IS insane, and the result are just schizophrenic ideas about time
travel and gross misunderstanding about the place we live in.
Time travel is not possible. They say never say never. I will say it
once here.
NEVER.
-y
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 07:49:35 AM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 5:43 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jimmer :
The clock, (regardless of the kind of clock) is an inertia meter. This
is what time dilation tells us of which I am certain. Both clocks are
existentially so regardless of the inertial frame and do not exist in
different 'times'. If time was dilating for every object what you have
is a chaos. The truth is, time only dilates for those who carry clocks
with them.
Time doesn't dilate for every object of course. It is only our
spacetime
perception of it. Say you can fly at 3/4 the speed of light. From
your point of view. Time won't slow down. But when you return to
me. You'd be younger and all the cells in your body would reflect
it including your watch. This is all logical so that the laws of
physics
is the same in all inertial frames of reference. In a purely concrete
and
purely physical world. This won't make sense but we are not living
in a physical world but more like inside a simulation of some kind.
Imagine decades from now when AI becomes establish and you
are going to make a new computer game. You need to apply
Special Relativity in the computer game to be realistic
because after you turn off the power, the game world would
vanish. This means there is no privilege frame of reference
because it is just a program, so SR should apply.
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.
If they placed the clock in Greenwich (the world meridian) into a
higher inertial frame, time would slow down for all clocks which
relied on that clock for data.
Therefore, TRUE Inertia is very different than what you would
calculate using old frameworks. It would also be different depending
on the size of the energy transfer system.
energy transfer? pls. elaborate. I don't understand what you are
saying.
SO: Time is not Time. Time is really just time keeping - the way it
used to be. What I speak of is nothing new, except the fact that
certain schools have been pumping the idea of time into allot of
peoples minds.
A dimension is always a distance. A dimension must not be an invisible
thing. To use something invisible is insane. But people are always
taught to believe in invisible things - God, Santa, Easter Bunny and
so they are comfortable fantasies that we are brought up with.
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.
Look at all the insanity these fantasies cause !
As you move around you see things, and you have a memory. Its part of
the fact that things are always taking place. Some, call this time,
and this is acceptable. But it is not appropriate in relativistic
physics. Practical physics yes. But that is all. Physics lives and
dies with Newton. It stops with Einstein as borderline insane. The
rest IS insane, and the result are just schizophrenic ideas about time
travel and gross misunderstanding about the place we live in.
Time travel is not possible. They say never say never. I will say it
once here.
NEVER.
If the Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has any
basis in fact. When you say go time travel to last week. The world
and timeline would split into two such that in this world. You
are gone and the past didn't change. But in the parallel world.
You are living one week prior. Of course just speculations.
Special Relativity says instantaneous communication capability
can make you pull some time travel stunt. What if the randomness
inherent in quantum entanglement is not set in stone. A non-local
bohm hidden variable theory would in principle enable you
to send instantaneous signal that would go against causality
and pull time travel stunt. But if we are living inside a simulation.
Of course the programmer would create time travel protection
subroutines, etc.
Yes. Physics is better than any science fiction or fairy tale
that's why it's one way to get myself entertained. Lol...
J.
J.
-y
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 08:31:42 PM |
|
|
We are not living in a simulation. We are living in a physical world
of material and light. When material and light intersect sometimes you
get illusions, and these illusions are phenomena.
Relativity is like a rainbow. You can see it, but it has no beginning
and no end. The more you chase it the further it will move away from
you.
You are wrong about becoming younger traveling at that speed. You will
not be younger traveling at that speed. Your clock will show a
different time because it is a mechanical device that was placed in a
higher inertial frame. The cells in your body are not at a slower rate
of decay because of this higher inertial frame. When you are born you
are in growth. When you hit about 40 you begin to decay. This is the
mortal coil that we all know is common sense. We are also made of what
we eat. If a baby were not to eat, it would not grow, it would die.
You need to speak to some chemists for your own mental well being, and
ask them if you can accelerate the half life of matter by placing it
in higher inertial frames. You can't.
hehehe, a simulation. I agree that most of the material around us are
made into models, but lets face it. It is real.
-y
On Jun 1, 10:49 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:43 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jimmer :
The clock, (regardless of the kind of clock) is an inertia meter. This
is what time dilation tells us of which I am certain. Both clocks are
existentially so regardless of the inertial frame and do not exist in
different 'times'. If time was dilating for every object what you have
is a chaos. The truth is, time only dilates for those who carry clocks
with them.
Time doesn't dilate for every object of course. It is only our
spacetime
perception of it. Say you can fly at 3/4 the speed of light. From
your point of view. Time won't slow down. But when you return to
me. You'd be younger and all the cells in your body would reflect
it including your watch. This is all logical so that the laws of
physics
is the same in all inertial frames of reference. In a purely concrete
and
purely physical world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
02 Jun 2007 08:08:38 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 9:31 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
We are not living in a simulation. We are living in a physical world
of material and light. When material and light intersect sometimes you
get illusions, and these illusions are phenomena.
Relativity is like a rainbow. You can see it, but it has no beginning
and no end. The more you chase it the further it will move away from
you.
You are wrong about becoming younger traveling at that speed. You will
not be younger traveling at that speed. Your clock will show a
different time because it is a mechanical device that was placed in a
higher inertial frame. The cells in your body are not at a slower rate
of decay because of this higher inertial frame. When you are born you
are in growth. When you hit about 40 you begin to decay. This is the
mortal coil that we all know is common sense. We are also made of what
we eat. If a baby were not to eat, it would not grow, it would die.
You need to speak to some chemists for your own mental well being, and
ask them if you can accelerate the half life of matter by placing it
in higher inertial frames. You can't.
hehehe, a simulation. I agree that most of the material around us are
made into models, but lets face it. It is real.
-y
When you go outside at night and watch the sky. Common
sense would tell you that time in those stars and galaxies
you see with your telescope is the same as time here.
In other words, absolute time rules in the cosmos. But
this is for man in the street. For us who have awakened
from the Cosmic Matrix. The time is different in each
star and galaxy you see. Where their gravitional field is
strong say relative to earth, time is slower. Supposed.
there are beings living in a planet with 20 times
the gravity of earth. Those adamatium beings would
have time that is slower so while spending one hour
in your telescope. Only a second tick by in their planet.
This goes for different objects which tick at different
times throughout the galaxies.
About the physical world being real. Well. Before
measurements and decoherence. All quantum objects
are are in superposition without definite location and shape.
The classical world is just an approximation of a quantum
reality. The other night. I imagined what it would be to be
like the photon or electron in between the source and
detector in the double slit experiment. As I was
contemplating on it. I seemed to get stuck in the
superposition where space doesn't even exist
and there is no left, right, up, down because
you are everywhere. Then morning came and a
ray of light hit the superposition causing
decoherence which produces the same outcome
as collapse of the wave function. Then I woke
up.
Welcome to the Cosmic Matrix. :)
J.
On Jun 1, 10:49 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:43 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jimmer :
The clock, (regardless of the kind of clock) is an inertia meter. This
is what time dilation tells us of which I am certain. Both clocks are
existentially so regardless of the inertial frame and do not exist in
different 'times'. If time was dilating for every object what you have
is a chaos. The truth is, time only dilates for those who carry clocks
with them.
Time doesn't dilate for every object of course. It is only our
spacetime
perception of it. Say you can fly at 3/4 the speed of light. From
your point of view. Time won't slow down. But when you return to
me. You'd be younger and all the cells in your body would reflect
it including your watch. This is all logical so that the laws of
physics
is the same in all inertial frames of reference. In a purely concrete
and
purely physical world.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 09:12:16 PM |
|
|
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 ?
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.
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Christiansen" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
02 Jun 2007 03:41:17 AM |
|
|
"Y" <yanarchi@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1180750336.050094.204000@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
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.
That is nonsense. The number of days in a year is not depending on the shape
of Earth's orbit. It is depending on the speed in the orbit and the
rotational speed.
John Christiansen
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 ?
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.
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
02 Jun 2007 08:23:14 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 10:12 am, Y <yanar...@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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
27 May 2007 10:08:30 AM |
|
|
On May 27, 9:28 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 27, 2:34 am, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:> On May 26, 12:08 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
About Gravity, Inertia and Mass
Inertia
<snip>
While a particle is moving at a constant speed and
all the geometrical parameters are set, it won't
experience any inertial forces, but as it
accelerates and the relationships change, it needs
to keep adjusting to its new energy/space
consumption settings. That's why relativistic
effects are so real. When accelerated in relation
to other particles, space shrinks, time slows down
and mass (process) grows within the particle to
balance energy usage in momentum space and
maintain its dependence and relation to spacetime
in accordance to energy conservation laws.
I have 3 questions. First. You wrote above
that ".. time slows down, and mass (process)
grows WITHIN the particle" but isn't it that in
the concept of Special Relativity, a particle or
you or your ship doesn't experience any changes
even at near lightspeed. It is only the other person
(or thing) viewing you in another frame of reference that
would see your ship or particle as having length
contractions, time slowing down, etc. It doesn't
happen to your actual ship or particle. What do
you say about this.
Within the particle, but in relation to the observer (I wrote - in
relation to other particles). If you are the one moving at near light
speed, you won't experience any changes, to you, it would feel like
nothing is happening. To you, a foot long ruler will still be a foot
long ruler.
2. Second question. How do you model the double
slit experiment especially in the one photon (or
electron, etc.) at a time experiment. Why does the
particle interfere with itself. I think you
subscribe to the Pilot Wave of Bohm. Don't you.
What's the difference between yours compare to it?
How do you model QFT using Bohm or your equivalent
pilot wave?
All particles are accompanied by a matter-wave.
See: http://cyberdyno1.tripod.com/insidematter.jpg
The particle isn't interfering with itself, the particle's matter-wave
brings in information about its surroundings. That's why I don't think
it is a matter of observing it or not, I think the particle interacts
with everything around it, even with the instruments being used.
See:
Nonlocal Aspects of a Quantum Wave
Authors: Y. Aharonov, L. Vaidman
(Submitted on 23 Sep 1999)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9909072
Fundamental Physics Applications
The NI is the only device that gives direct access to the phase of
neutron waves. This ability has long been utilized to investigate
fundamental problems in quantum mechanics. Important experiments such
as the 4 spinor rotation of fermions and gravitationally induced
quantum interference have been carried out. This important basic
research continues at the NIOF. Experiments such as a ***Wheeler
Delayed-Choice experiment*** and a precision measurement of the
Aharonov-Casher effect are being designed in collaboration with
physicists from universities and other research institutions.
More at:
http://physics.nist.gov/MajResFac/InterFer/text.html
3. Third and last. You mention the non-local
signal moves in the aether which knows no time nor
space so the information is simultaneous
everywhere in the universe. This means there is
possibility we can send information that is more
than the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics.
This means instantaneous information exchange
between two particles in separate frame of
reference. This means time travel is possible.
What is your view of this. Or could there be a no
time travel barrier somewhere here. I'd like to
know if there is such barrier because there is
really theoretical possibility of sending
information non-local via the Aether or whatever
pathway and I'm concern the time travel
consequences.
Time travel would have to happen at the matter level, and that is
impossible. We can look at our past by looking at images gathered by
the Hubble telescope, but that's about it. The future does not exist.
And we can't reverse the time arrow.
See: Ilya Prigogine's work on this, it got him the Nobel Prize.
I hope you can answer this with your words and not
quoting an entire article in your collectio | | |
