| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rudolf Drabek" |
| Date: |
31 May 2007 04:27:36 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What is the Aether? |
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no source or Platonia. All existing information exists
within the system that contains and uses it, nothing coming from an
external source.
--
Laurent- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What you suggested is more practical of course. The source I'm
talking
about is Bohm Implicate Order. But it's ok if you don't take that as
possibility.
Let's go of the Aether. Aether was postulated to explore a possible
privilege frame of reference. But Special Relativity has proven
everything esp. motion is relative. So the Aether is already
destroyed.
Aether and Special Relativity are opposite. Since Special Relativity
wins, the Aether loses. So there is no Aether.
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the
phys. priciples as a
condition sine qua non.
The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you
like.
.
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 06:06:48 AM |
|
|
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsrudy@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the
phys. priciples as a
condition sine qua non.
The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you
like.
You're confusing the properties of space with those of an
aether.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 06:24:11 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
EM requires a medium.
If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers
we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper.
See this light hugging the conductor and
avoiding open space.
http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Radio/vertical-58.gif
There is no place in this unverse to prove you statement anyway.
<< Although the interstellar regions are more devoid of matter
than any vacuum artificially created on earth, there is matter in
space. These regions have very low densities and consist mainly
of gas (99%) and dust. In total, approximately 15% of the
visible matter in the Milky Way is composed of interstellar
gas and dust. [...] This gas is extremely dilute, with an average
density of about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. (For comparison,
the air we breathe has a density of approximately
30,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic centimeter.)
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
Sue...
I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the
phys. priciples as a
condition sine qua non.
The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you
like.
You're confusing the properties of space with those of an
aether.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 06:50:36 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180610651.131227.187260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
EM requires a medium.
No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a
medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a
preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a
medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley.
If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers
we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper.
Now you're confusing waveguides with space.
[snip further nonsense]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 12:58:13 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 7:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180610651.131227.187260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
EM requires a medium.
No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a
medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a
preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a
medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley.
Because the is not material and has no landmarks, the universe is
background free.
If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers
we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper.
Now you're confusing waveguides with space.
[snip further nonsens
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 01:11:48 AM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180634293.835874.237370@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 7:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180610651.131227.187260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold
as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
EM requires a medium.
No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a
medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a
preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a
medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley.
Because the is not material and has no landmarks, the universe is
background free.
No, there is Higgs now!
from: Spirit Of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 07:24:11 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180610651.131227.187260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
EM requires a medium.
No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a
medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a
preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a
medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley.
Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes
a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing.
It is an important distinction from acoustic waves.
MMX was null so is irrelevant. "Newbie" grasp this just
fine if you don't confuse them with Newton's 'corpuscles'.
If you do, they end up deranged like Androcles and Henri.
If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers
we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper.
Now you're confusing waveguides with space.
What kind of space do you mean? Is it 377 ohms?
If so we ~confuse~ (impedance match? ) them all
the time.
Sue...
[snip further nonsense]
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 08:17:21 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180614251.417306.326540@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180610651.131227.187260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to
hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
EM requires a medium.
No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a
medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a
preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a
medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley.
Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes
a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing.
It is an important distinction from acoustic waves.
Crap. And unimaginative crap at that. Are you expounding
this ignorance just to troll? Methinks so.
MMX was null so is irrelevant.
So you don't understand the import of the null result,
meaning you have no grasp of the physics involved.
"Newbie" grasp this just
fine if you don't confuse them with Newton's 'corpuscles'.
If you do, they end up deranged like Androcles and Henri.
If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers
we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper.
Now you're confusing waveguides with space.
What kind of space do you mean? Is it 377 ohms?
If so we ~confuse~ (impedance match? ) them all
the time.
You continue to confuse properties with substance.
So you have demonstrated that you also do not know
what a waveguide is along with your lack of understanding
of radiation resistance. Is there no limit to the
depths of ignorance which you mine for your posts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 08:33:25 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180614251.417306.326540@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180610651.131227.187260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to
hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
EM requires a medium.
No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a
medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a
preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a
medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley.
Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes
a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing.
It is an important distinction from acoustic waves.
Crap. And unimaginative crap at that. Are you expounding
this ignorance just to troll? Methinks so.
MMX was null so is irrelevant.
So you don't understand the import of the null result,
meaning you have no grasp of the physics involved.
"Newbie" grasp this just
fine if you don't confuse them with Newton's 'corpuscles'.
If you do, they end up deranged like Androcles and Henri.
If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers
we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper.
Now you're confusing waveguides with space.
What kind of space do you mean? Is it 377 ohms?
If so we ~confuse~ (impedance match? ) them all
the time.
You continue to confuse properties with substance.
So you have demonstrated that you also do not know
what a waveguide is along with your lack of understanding
of radiation resistance. Is there no limit to the
depths of ignorance which you mine for your posts?
Learn some physics:
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Sue...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 08:55:03 AM |
|
|
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180618405.527050.212010@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Learn some physics:
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
You're conflating fields and properties of space with aether.
Learn some physics yourself:
Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Free+Energy%2C+Gravity+and+the+Aeth...
Relevant References
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 09:49:34 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:55 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180618405.527050.212010@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Learn some physics:
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
You're conflating fields and properties of space with aether.
Learn some physics yourself:
Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
That is a dead link. Quite possibly the result of a
direct challenge to John Baez in this forum about its
content. He disclaimed the abuse of imaginary operators
and pointed out that he was not the original author.
By adhering to the correct formalism:
<< Note: if you know about complex numbers
you will notice that the space part enters as if it
were imaginary
R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2
where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be
the essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime
geometry - that space enters in with the imaginary
factor i relative to time. >>
http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html
....twins in free-space can always split their birthday candles
in half and the mythical aging goes the way of the belhop paradox.
<< Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity
in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper
written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a
critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions
of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special
relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins,
and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic
gravitational time dilation during the brief periods
of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging.
Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to
simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss
Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues
that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using
gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and
physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general
setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider
many issues related to the comparison of transported
clocks. The failure of the accepted views and
resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity
principle formulated originally for physics in empty
space is not valid in the matter-filled universe.
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Gravitation Group,
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India >>
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Free+Energy%2C+Gravity+and+the+Aeth...
Einstein made no secret his inertial space was a pseudo-space.
If you want "free-energy" from free-space, just put its
hydrogen in a fusion reactor.
Sue...
Relevant References
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 01:01:49 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180614251.417306.326540@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180610651.131227.187260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to
hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.
No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.
EM requires a medium.
No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a
medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a
preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a
medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley.
Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes
a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing.
It is an important distinction from acoustic waves.
Crap. And unimaginative crap at that. Are you expounding
this ignorance just to troll? Methinks so.
MMX was null so is irrelevant.
All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the
aether.
You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving
object.
So you don't understand the import of the null result,
meaning you have no grasp of the physics involved.
"Newbie" grasp this just
fine if you don't confuse them with Newton's 'corpuscles'.
If you do, they end up deranged like Androcles and Henri.
If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers
we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper.
Now you're confusing waveguides with space.
What kind of space do you mean? Is it 377 ohms?
If so we ~confuse~ (impedance match? ) them all
the time.
You continue to confuse properties with substance.
So you have demonstrated that you also do not know
what a waveguide is along with your lack of understanding
of radiation resistance. Is there no limit to the
depths of ignorance which you mine for your posts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
31 May 2007 01:15:10 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180634509.457250.262660@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
MMX was null so is irrelevant.
All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the
aether.
Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of
the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious.
You can start by listing the mechanical properties of
the aether as needed to match the observed data such
as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX
results, relativistic velocity addition for light,
etc., etc.
You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving
object.
You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun
without significant change in its momentum through a
medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation
of light).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 01:04:30 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:465f0fee$0$15975$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180634509.457250.262660@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
MMX was null so is irrelevant.
All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the
aether.
Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of
the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious.
You can start by listing the mechanical properties of
the aether as needed to match the observed data such
as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX
results, relativistic velocity addition for light,
etc., etc.
You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving
object.
You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun
without significant change in its momentum through a
medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation
of light).
woh!
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations AND reciprocal
time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no
matter what answer to the problem I constantly review!
this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one
can somewhat do away with the reciprocity!
from: Spirit Of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
01 Jun 2007 07:22:34 AM |
|
|
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without
using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters
paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too?
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other.
Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the
situation is not symmetrical for the two twins. That
acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven
easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of
water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the
other sits still, the one that accelerated would have
the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the
unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the
other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing
in general, for bathtubs around the globe.
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations
No, decelerations are like accelerations.
AND reciprocal
time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no
matter what answer to the problem I constantly review!
There must be hundreds of web pages and more hundreds of
usenet threads that have beaten this to death. I can't
see where I need to contribute another sampling, or will
have anything fundamentally new to add. Sorry.
this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one
can somewhat do away with the reciprocity!
Well, even Galilean transforms admit to relativity betwixt
certain parameters, such as distance and velocity.
Aether theory really starts to lose all traction when quantum
effects start showing up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
02 Jun 2007 02:14:38 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46600ec8$0$10391$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without
using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters
paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too?
No, that's a cop out. You can talk in English words describing
the relevent points where a difference occurs and explain why
each observer has a difference again in simple English words.
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other.
Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the
situation is not symmetrical for the two twins.
No, they apparantly disagree that the acceleration is absolute.
A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe
accelerates away.
That
acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven
easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of
water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the
other sits still, the one that accelerated would have
the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the
unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the
other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing
in general, for bathtubs around the globe.
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations
No, decelerations are like accelerations.
Same as I wrote above. Greg, if one treats accelerations
and decelerations as absolutes obviously the problems go away
....but all the sites I see don't allow those to be taken as
differentiating the twins.
AND reciprocal
time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no
matter what answer to the problem I constantly review!
There must be hundreds of web pages and more hundreds of
usenet threads that have beaten this to death. I can't
see where I need to contribute another sampling, or will
have anything fundamentally new to add. Sorry.
this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one
can somewhat do away with the reciprocity!
Well, even Galilean transforms admit to relativity betwixt
certain parameters, such as distance and velocity.
Sure, and no problem. The paradox comes into play with time dilation.
Aether theory really starts to lose all traction when quantum
effects start showing up.
Perhaps.
from: Spirit Of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
02 Jun 2007 06:26:30 AM |
|
|
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bM88i.5370$u56.1203@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46600ec8$0$10391$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without
using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters
paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too?
No, that's a cop out. You can talk in English words describing
the relevent points where a difference occurs and explain why
each observer has a difference again in simple English words.
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other.
Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the
situation is not symmetrical for the two twins.
No, they apparantly disagree that the acceleration is absolute.
No. Only one twin feels the acceleration.
A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe
accelerates away.
What local gravitational field? The thought experiment can
take place far from any large masses. Or are you referring
to the equivalence of acceleration and a uniform gravitational
field? In that case, again, only one twin experiences it.
This "field" is only experienced by the twin that is
accelerating.
That
acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven
easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of
water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the
other sits still, the one that accelerated would have
the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the
unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the
other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing
in general, for bathtubs around the globe.
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations
No, decelerations are like accelerations.
Same as I wrote above. Greg, if one treats accelerations
and decelerations as absolutes obviously the problems go away
...but all the sites I see don't allow those to be taken as
differentiating the twins.
I find that hard to fathom. Acceleration is the thing
that breaks the symmetry between the twins' otherwise
identical experiences. In relativity-speak, it
distinguishes their frames of reference.
The important difference is the different spacetime
intervals that the two twins cover. On a simple
worldline map (space on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis),
the twin with the longer worldline, with both twins
starting together and ending together, experiences less
time.
Uncle Al does a credible job in describing a version of
the thought experiment that even eliminates the
acceleration component during the period when each
twin's clocks are running during the "test":
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d17e0a0788cf1d21/1df7d9a7dbeca962?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#1df7d9a7dbeca962
It might be worth taking a look.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
10 Jun 2007 09:47:27 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46615322$0$4425$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bM88i.5370$u56.1203@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46600ec8$0$10391$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without
using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters
paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too?
No, that's a cop out. You can talk in English words describing
the relevent points where a difference occurs and explain why
each observer has a difference again in simple English words.
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other.
Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the
situation is not symmetrical for the two twins.
No, they apparantly disagree that the acceleration is absolute.
No. Only one twin feels the acceleration.
Yes, but that is simply that can be taken as an experience
of a gravitational field with the Universe accelerating around
that Twin.
A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe
accelerates away.
What local gravitational field? The thought experiment can
take place far from any large masses. Or are you referring
to the equivalence of acceleration and a uniform gravitational
field? In that case, again, only one twin experiences it.
This "field" is only experienced by the twin that is
accelerating.
Yes, the latter and the answer is as above.
That
acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven
easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of
water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the
other sits still, the one that accelerated would have
the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the
unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the
other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing
in general, for bathtubs around the globe.
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations
No, decelerations are like accelerations.
Same as I wrote above. Greg, if one treats accelerations
and decelerations as absolutes obviously the problems go away
...but all the sites I see don't allow those to be taken as
differentiating the twins.
I find that hard to fathom. Acceleration is the thing
that breaks the symmetry between the twins' otherwise
identical experiences. In relativity-speak, it
distinguishes their frames of reference.
Well, Einstein reckoned it wasn't that and the differentiation was
in the changing frames at the destination of one of the Twins.
The important difference is the different spacetime
intervals that the two twins cover. On a simple
worldline map (space on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis),
the twin with the longer worldline, with both twins
starting together and ending together, experiences less
time.
Uncle Al does a credible job in describing a version of
the thought experiment that even eliminates the
acceleration component during the period when each
twin's clocks are running during the "test":
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d17e0a0788cf1d21/1df7d9a7dbeca962?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#1df7d9a7dbeca962
It might be worth taking a look.
[snip]
Actually Uncle Al appears to have destructive impulses
towards clocks and in fact David put it better as follows
but an opposite action and evaluation is possible so it
fails to differentiate the two.
"Consider that you could have
* clock B stay home,
* clock A synchronize with B in passing (having accelerated
before), then
* some long distance away A' synchronizes with A in passing,
while
* A' retuns to pass by B where
* the difference between B and A' is noted.
No acceleration in the experimental period, yet different
elapsed time."
Point is you could have that happen in reverse
with the A seeing himself as not moving and the first clock
synchonize with what he sees as a moving B etc.
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
10 Jun 2007 10:16:27 PM |
|
|
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:CH2bi.1296$TC1.1056@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46615322$0$4425$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bM88i.5370$u56.1203@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46600ec8$0$10391$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without
using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters
paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too?
No, that's a cop out. You can talk in English words describing
the relevent points where a difference occurs and explain why
each observer has a difference again in simple English words.
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other.
Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the
situation is not symmetrical for the two twins.
No, they apparantly disagree that the acceleration is absolute.
No. Only one twin feels the acceleration.
Yes, but that is simply that can be taken as an experience
of a gravitational field with the Universe accelerating around
that Twin.
So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin
feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker.
A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe
accelerates away.
What local gravitational field? The thought experiment can
take place far from any large masses. Or are you referring
to the equivalence of acceleration and a uniform gravitational
field? In that case, again, only one twin experiences it.
This "field" is only experienced by the twin that is
accelerating.
Yes, the latter and the answer is as above.
Ditto.
That
acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven
easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of
water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the
other sits still, the one that accelerated would have
the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the
unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the
other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing
in general, for bathtubs around the globe.
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations
No, decelerations are like accelerations.
Same as I wrote above. Greg, if one treats accelerations
and decelerations as absolutes obviously the problems go away
...but all the sites I see don't allow those to be taken as
differentiating the twins.
I find that hard to fathom. Acceleration is the thing
that breaks the symmetry between the twins' otherwise
identical experiences. In relativity-speak, it
distinguishes their frames of reference.
Well, Einstein reckoned it wasn't that and the differentiation was
in the changing frames at the destination of one of the Twins.
Um, er, how does one change frames if not by acceleration?
The important difference is the different spacetime
intervals that the two twins cover. On a simple
worldline map (space on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis),
the twin with the longer worldline, with both twins
starting together and ending together, experiences less
time.
Uncle Al does a credible job in describing a version of
the thought experiment that even eliminates the
acceleration component during the period when each
twin's clocks are running during the "test":
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d17e0a0788cf1d21/1df7d9a7dbeca962?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#1df7d9a7dbeca962
It might be worth taking a look.
[snip]
Actually Uncle Al appears to have destructive impulses
towards clocks and in fact David put it better as follows
but an opposite action and evaluation is possible so it
fails to differentiate the two.
"Consider that you could have
* clock B stay home,
* clock A synchronize with B in passing (having accelerated
before), then
* some long distance away A' synchronizes with A in passing,
while
* A' retuns to pass by B where
* the difference between B and A' is noted.
No acceleration in the experimental period, yet different
elapsed time."
Point is you could have that happen in reverse
with the A seeing himself as not moving and the first clock
synchonize with what he sees as a moving B etc.
The accelerating twin will always know that it's
he who's accelerating. Acceleration is absolute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
10 Jun 2007 11:20:17 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:CH2bi.1296$TC1.1056@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46615322$0$4425$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bM88i.5370$u56.1203@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46600ec8$0$10391$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without
using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters
paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too?
No, that's a cop out. You can talk in English words describing
the relevent points where a difference occurs and explain why
each observer has a difference again in simple English words.
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other.
Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the
situation is not symmetrical for the two twins.
No, they apparantly disagree that the acceleration is absolute.
No. Only one twin feels the acceleration.
Yes, but that is simply that can be taken as an experience
of a gravitational field with the Universe accelerating around
that Twin.
So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin
feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker.
Common, Greg, apply yourself to this!
What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards
the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are
moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press
on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains
will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour.
A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe
accelerates away.
What local gravitational field? The thought experiment can
take place far from any large masses. Or are you referring
to the equivalence of acceleration and a uniform gravitational
field? In that case, again, only one twin experiences it.
This "field" is only experienced by the twin that is
accelerating.
Yes, the latter and the answer is as above.
Ditto.
That
acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven
easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of
water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the
other sits still, the one that accelerated would have
the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the
unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the
other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing
in general, for bathtubs around the globe.
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations
No, decelerations are like accelerations.
Same as I wrote above. Greg, if one treats accelerations
and decelerations as absolutes obviously the problems go away
...but all the sites I see don't allow those to be taken as
differentiating the twins.
I find that hard to fathom. Acceleration is the thing
that breaks the symmetry between the twins' otherwise
identical experiences. In relativity-speak, it
distinguishes their frames of reference.
Well, Einstein reckoned it wasn't that and the differentiation was
in the changing frames at the destination of one of the Twins.
Um, er, how does one change frames if not by acceleration?
I said at the destination as opposed to the starting and finishing.
The important difference is the different spacetime
intervals that the two twins cover. On a simple
worldline map (space on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis),
the twin with the longer worldline, with both twins
starting together and ending together, experiences less
time.
Uncle Al does a credible job in describing a version of
the thought experiment that even eliminates the
acceleration component during the period when each
twin's clocks are running during the "test":
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d17e0a0788cf1d21/1df7d9a7dbeca962?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#1df7d9a7dbeca962
It might be worth taking a look.
[snip]
Actually Uncle Al appears to have destructive impulses
towards clocks and in fact David put it better as follows
but an opposite action and evaluation is possible so it
fails to differentiate the two.
"Consider that you could have
* clock B stay home,
* clock A synchronize with B in passing (having accelerated
before), then
* some long distance away A' synchronizes with A in passing,
while
* A' retuns to pass by B where
* the difference between B and A' is noted.
No acceleration in the experimental period, yet different
elapsed time."
Point is you could have that happen in reverse
with the A seeing himself as not moving and the first clock
synchonize with what he sees as a moving B etc.
The accelerating twin will always know that it's
he who's accelerating. Acceleration is absolute.
Fine, when I find an appropriate link I post it for you.
from: Spirit Of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
11 Jun 2007 06:53:49 AM |
|
|
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:D24bi.18061$C96.12346@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin
feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker.
Common, Greg, apply yourself to this!
What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards
the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are
moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press
on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains
will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour.
Oy vey. An accelerometer on the car will measure the
acceleration engendered by pressing on the gas. A
similar accelerometer on the mountainside will not
measure a damned thing (no change).
Since you can't seem to wrap your head around this
trivial concept, it would be pointless to continue
conversing.
Have fun.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
21 Jun 2007 01:17:47 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:466d36b9$0$25784$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:D24bi.18061$C96.12346@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin
feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker.
Common, Greg, apply yourself to this!
What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards
the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are
moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press
on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains
will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour.
Oy vey. An accelerometer on the car will measure the
acceleration engendered by pressing on the gas. A
similar accelerometer on the mountainside will not
measure a damned thing (no change).
That's a rather silly note, Greg, as if you applied that in SR
one side also would not show any motion.
Spirit
Since you can't seem to wrap your head around this
trivial concept, it would be pointless to continue
conversing.
Have fun.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
12 Jun 2007 12:17:04 AM |
|
|
On Jun 11, 4:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote in messagenews:D24bi.18061$C96.12346@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin
feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker.
Common, Greg, apply yourself to this!
What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards
the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are
moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press
on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains
will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour.
Oy vey. An accelerometer on the car will measure the
acceleration engendered by pressing on the gas. A
similar accelerometer on the mountainside will not
measure a damned thing (no change).
Since you can't seem to wrap your head around this
trivial concept, it would be pointless to continue
conversing.
Have fun.
What if it is the massive gravity of the mountains that is causing the
acceleration of the car? The accelerometer in the car would not
measure a thing.
Double-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
12 Jun 2007 06:13:49 AM |
|
|
"Double-A" <double-aa@hush.ai> wrote in message
news:1181625424.554708.50720@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 11, 4:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote in
messagenews:D24bi.18061$C96.12346@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
"Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin
feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker.
Common, Greg, apply yourself to this!
What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards
the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are
moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press
on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains
will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour.
Oy vey. An accelerometer on the car will measure the
acceleration engendered by pressing on the gas. A
similar accelerometer on the mountainside will not
measure a damned thing (no change).
Since you can't seem to wrap your head around this
trivial concept, it would be pointless to continue
conversing.
Have fun.
What if it is the massive gravity of the mountains that is causing the
acceleration of the car? The accelerometer in the car would not
measure a thing.
True -- free fall. And both mountain and car would accelerate
in the center of mass frame. Of course, when the clock in the
car and the clock on the mountain are brought together into the
same frame for comparison (*splat*) the acceleration will be
much more noticeable ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
12 Jun 2007 07:31:48 AM |
|
|
Double-A Macro objects are immersed in the aether,and if massive enough
are made round by the gravity pressure of the aether The object curves
the fabric of space,and space curves the object. It is all part of
natures balancing act. Reality is objects moving very fast through the
aether create waves. Astronomers call these waves space ripples,or
gravity waves. A BH going very fast would create tidal gravitational
waves. Double-A lets hope that the laser interferometer(LISA) that will
be in space by 2015 will detect gravity waves. The Earth's surface
vibrations make gravity waves impossible to detect. bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Bert, Double-A doesn't read " Sci.Physics ". |
13 Jun 2007 05:52:48 AM |
|
|
Double-A ( with his 10 year old PC, slower than Arctic molasses )
doesn't read " Sci.Physics " Bert... You'll have to cross-post
to " Alt.Sci.Physics.New-Theories " if you want to reach him.
Perhaps if you asked the nice folks at MSN TV
they'd grant you permission to post to 2 newsgroups.
Failing that, you could use " Outlook for MSN TV "
and " NNTP.aioe.ORG " on port 80 or 119 .
No login is required, it's free. Google'd work too, of course.
You wrote:
" A BH going very fast would create tidal gravitational waves. "
Looking at " http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Milky_Way#Speed_through_space ",
I see that Sagittarius A*, the apparent black hole
at the center of our Milky Way, is moving at 1.2 Mega Miles Per Hour,
relative to the rest frame of the C.M.B. .
Looking at " http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Milky_Way#Age ", I see also
that it's age is estimated to be 13.6 Giga Years ( +- .8 ).
If there's a kick ( i.e. a quick change in acceleration )
it's too small for us to measure, given today's technology.
Background noise is also a huge factor, as you noted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
02 Jun 2007 02:28:46 AM |
|
|
Clarified a meaning....
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:46600ec8$0$10391$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without
using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters
paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too?
No, that's a cop out. You can talk in English words describing
the relevent points where a difference occurs and explain why
each observer has a difference again in simple English words.
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other.
Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the
situation is not symmetrical for the two twins.
No, GR apparantly disagrees that the acceleration is absolute.
A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe
accelerates away.
That
acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven
easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of
water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the
other sits still, the one that accelerated would have
the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the
unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the
other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing
in general, for bathtubs around the globe.
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations
No, decelerations are like accelerations.
Same as I wrote above. Greg, if one treats accelerations
and decelerations as absolutes obviously the problems go away
....but all the sites I see don't allow those to be taken as
differentiating the twins.
AND reciprocal
time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no
matter what answer to the problem I constantly review!
There must be hundreds of web pages and more hundreds of
usenet threads that have beaten this to death. I can't
see where I need to contribute another sampling, or will
have anything fundamentally new to add. Sorry.
this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one
can somewhat do away with the reciprocity!
Well, even Galilean transforms admit to relativity betwixt
certain parameters, such as distance and velocity.
Sure, and no problem. The paradox comes into play with time dilation.
Aether theory really starts to lose all traction when quantum
effects start showing up.
Perhaps.
from: Spirit Of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
02 Jun 2007 11:39:42 AM |
|
|
On 2007-06-01, Spirit of Truth <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote:
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:465f0fee$0$15975$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180634509.457250.262660@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
MMX was null so is irrelevant.
All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the
aether.
Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of
the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious.
You can start by listing the mechanical properties of
the aether as needed to match the observed data such
as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX
results, relativistic velocity addition for light,
etc., etc.
You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving
object.
You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun
without significant change in its momentum through a
medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation
of light).
woh!
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
Please provide an example of what you mean (newtonian mechanics
will be fine). Oh, wait... You probably did not realize that a
galilean frame is still a frame and newtonian mechanics hinges
on the galilean definition of a frame.
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations AND reciprocal
time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no
matter what answer to the problem I constantly review!
Naturally, since it wasn't worth your effort to calculate something
which would contradict your opinion of the result.
this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one
can somewhat do away with the reciprocity!
So, are you suggesting that physicists abandon a theory which
makes perfect physical sense and serves as the basis for theories
which agree with all known experimental data in favor of theory
based on a principle which precludes the comparison of two
measurements of the same phenomena and a mysterious substance that
still can't account for any of the phenomena for which it was
hypothesized and whose only prtoperty seems to be an uncanny
ability to influence any physical process so as to evade detection?
Gee, sign me up...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
03 Jun 2007 05:53:49 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.sz> wrote in message
news:slrnf637b6.3qi.dubious@iris.lebesque-al.net...
On 2007-06-01, Spirit of Truth <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote:
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:465f0fee$0$15975$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180634509.457250.262660@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
MMX was null so is irrelevant.
All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the
aether.
Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of
the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious.
You can start by listing the mechanical properties of
the aether as needed to match the observed data such
as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX
results, relativistic velocity addition for light,
etc., etc.
You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving
object.
You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun
without significant change in its momentum through a
medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation
of light).
woh!
Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!
Please provide an example of what you mean
I, moving away from you, see you moving away from me.
(newtonian mechanics
will be fine). Oh, wait... You probably did not realize that a
galilean frame is still a frame and newtonian mechanics hinges
on the galilean definition of a frame.
Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations AND reciprocal
time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no
matter what answer to the problem I constantly review!
Naturally, since it wasn't worth your effort to calculate something
which would contradict your opinion of the result.
this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one
can somewhat do away with the reciprocity!
So, are you suggesting that physicists abandon a theory which
makes perfect physical sense and serves as the basis for theories
which agree with all known experimental data in favor of theory
based on a principle which precludes the comparison of two
measurements of the same phenomena and a mysterious substance that
still can't account for any of the phenomena for which it was
hypothesized and whose only prtoperty seems to be an uncanny
ability to influence any physical process so as to evade detection?
Gee, sign me up...
Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results
in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the
universe we are studying.
from: Spirit Of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
03 Jun 2007 06:48:20 PM |
|
|
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:FCH8i.14257$C96.6883@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results
in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the
universe we are studying.
Actually, it does. Every experiment done to date has
confirmed that the Lorentz transform is a true representation
of the physics of the universe. If you say otherwise, please
provide a cite to a peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates
it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spirit of Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: What is the Aether? |
10 Jun 2007 09:51:41 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4663527d$0$7898$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:FCH8i.14257$C96.6883@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results
in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the
universe we are studying.
Actually, it does. Every experiment done to date has
confirmed that the Lorentz transform is a true representation
of the physics of the universe. If you say otherwise, please
provide a cite to a peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates
it.
No, Greg, it doesn't look:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001008/00/Conclusions_About_Simultaneity_of_Two_Events.pdf
from: Spirit Of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
