| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Laurent" |
| Date: |
28 Dec 2007 01:48:54 AM |
| Object: |
The Aether and Relativity |
Empty space was, then came the universe. There can be empty space
without a universe, but not a universe without empty space... just
like there can't be matter without continuity, causality and process.
Reduce yourself to a size smaller than the smallest particle and what
do you get? More empty space.
We are effectively talking about the perfectly flat vacuum state of
any quantum field theory. This notion of an aether has been integrated
into physics for a very long time, it is a philosophical necessity.
Some call it the long winded vacuum state of quantum field theory, I
prefer to call it what it has always been called. The term aether
isn't used much since it harkens back to the idea of a material
medium, a fixed frame of reference, which is very misleading.
A perfectly flat vacuum state refers to the quantum mechanical state
of the vacuum. But is that vacuum considered a thing? Is it real? I
suppose it is, since how could it be in any given state if it wasn't
real? Is it real even though it isn't matter. It is real and it's
called aether.
The aether was re-introduced early in the 20th century by scientists
like Einstein, Mach and Minkowski as they were trying to describe a
substance, or... a thing. Einstein said that matter and fields emerged
from the same basic substance, that there can't be a universe without
an aether and that the aether is the seat to the electromagnetic and
gravitational fields. There are gravitational, electromagnetic and
nuclear forces because there is an aether. Without fields there can't
be matter, nor spacetime, therefore, the aether is.
But this is not the same aether Newton, Poincare and Lorentz talked
about, Einstein's universe is background free. In this new aether,
objects are relative to each other, not to absolute space, there is no
violation of the Principle of Relativity. Einstein, Mach and Minkowski
said, as they explained Relativity, things are not relative to
absolute space, things are relative to an absolute world.
The reason that, in spacetime, frames must be related is because it
all comes from a single entity, reality is one single process. The
aether is one, and because of that, the uni-verse is also one. All
inertial frames within the observable universe are related by the
aether, through the aether. All frames depend, in every way, on the
aether.
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. It is
Newton's absolute space mixed with Mach's aether, or, with
relativation. Empty space tells matter what to do, and matter tells
empty space what to do. That's where space curvature comes from.
Einstein said that, when trying to define the aether, we need to put
aside our notions of motion, extension, size... beginnings and
endings. In essence, he said this substance lacks the properties of
matter, yet, all matter emerged and is ruled from it. Empty space has
properties characteristic of a dimensionless point, yet, it contains
the universe.
If the aether is an all-pervading substance, why would it need a
property like motion? Motion and time are for objects, for parts which
follow a time-line in spacetime. The aether is everywhere, it is the
set of all sets. It is the circle Zeno, Bruno, St. Augustine, Pascal
and Borges, among others, once talked about, a circle whose center is
everywhere and circumference nowhere. It is not dependent on geometry,
but helps determine the geometry of spacetime. It is a plenum, a
matrix, the origin.
Bodies in space never acted on others from a distance, as Newton
thought as he tried to explain gravitation, there is no action at a
distance because there is no distance to be covered. The aether is one
and everywhere, it has no moving parts, motion is not necessary,
that's why state can be transferred instantaneously. It is an error to
think in terms of spatial extension when trying to understand what's
going on at the aether scale.
Relativity can only refer to relative time or length because it is the
description of a whole where objects are physically and energetically
dependent on each other. In other words, if an object were to be
conceived as accelerating at relativistic speeds in a perfect void,
independently from any object or frame of reference, there wouldn't be
time dilation, nor length contraction, 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 other objects. It is a property of the whole
which arises from a physical need to abide by the laws of
Thermodynamics.
This notion of wholeness 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. Why else would
an object's dimensions depend on its surroundings if it wasn't for
this wholeness?
Einstein presented a different notion of the universe with his 1920
essay - "Ether and the Theory of Relativity". He stripped 19th century
aethers off any kinematic or mechanical properties. This new aether
lacked the property of motion and was not composed of parts which
followed a time line. What he termed the 'gravitational ether' came
from a completely different idea. Motion and particulation, he said,
can't be considered properties of the aether because the aether is one
and has no components. This oneness can be used to explain action at a
distance and inertia.
Some claim that empty space has no physical properties, but if you
eliminate the notions of permittivity and permeability from Maxwell or
Einstein's theories, ratios on which the existence and behavior of all
fields entirely depends, the theories will completely fall apart. Some
believe in the reality of nothingness, that empty space as such is
real, and accept that notion as an integral part of their physics, but
can't even ascribe any physical properties to it. At least Einstein's
aether can be said to be real because of its physical nature. To be
real there is no need to be in spacetime, just to be able to act in
spacetime. It is physical because it can act on matter, and immaterial
because it lacks properties like extension or motion, it does not move
and has no parts or components in the material sense. When you have a
magnet acting upon an object, we say that a magnetic field is what
moves the object. But the path, the direction of propagation and the
intensity of the magnetic force lines, is determined at the
gravitational aether level.
The aether helps determine things like the ratio between the electric
displacement and the intensity of the electric field producing it, in
free space (permittivity), or the ratio between the magnetic flux
density and the external field strength, in free space (permeability).
But the aether itself is not observable, you can't say - here, lets
take a look at this piece of aether! - because it is immaterial. Real
but not in spacetime, hence, not directly observable. This is why MMX
(the Michelson-Morley experiment) failed so miserably. But you can
measure its effects; things like inertia, gravity, magnetism,
electricity... etc.
Supposedly, from the MMX results, we should conclude that the aether
is immaterial and directly unobservable. Now, if there was an empty
space, independently from the universe, before there was matter, isn't
the classical vacuum immaterial and directly unobservable too? Can we
take a direct measurement of something which is not matter? The only
thing proven by the MMX was that they didn't understand the aether's
nature. You want to measure drag caused by the aether? Just measure a
moving object's momentum... or measure the force needed to accelerate
any object... that's aether caused drag!
Some say - but if there is no material aether, how come space is
curved? It is curved because of sidereal lines of force. Just like any
empty field, empty space is warped as bodies with mass are added to
it, mass is what causes space curvature, that's why space isn't flat.
This is why we need a non-Euclidian geometry to describe it. All
particles are affected by those lines of force as they travel through
empty space.
GTR is an aether theory. That everything is related through empty
space is the basis, the foundation, of the GTR. That everything exists
in a single field, in a matrix. It is a philosophical necessity, if
not, how can anyone explain inertia, gravity or action-at distance?
Before we continue, we must distinguish empty space from material
space. Fields and matter are observable, measurable, empty space is
not. Fields have a geometric structure, empty space does not. When you
describe a field you may talk about intensity, density, size or
magnitude, but none of these concepts may be properly applied to a
description of Einstein's gravitational aether.
I see empty space as the seat to all fields, synonymous to Einstein's
aether, and I see it as a primary or fundamental component of physical
reality. Material space is synonymous to the field. Material space,
spacetime, or what many call the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR),
remnant radiation left after the Big Bang, is seen as a product.
Since, in this view, aether and empty space are synonymous, from now
on I will refer to them as one and the same thing.
Einstein's aether is not the same as his spacetime, spacetime is an
aether product synonymous to Timothy Boyer's and Alan Guth's material
space, which is nothing more than the CBR, a mix of visible and
invisible quantum matter (EMR, dark matter). Spacetime is material,
and Einstein's aether is physical but immaterial. First there needs to
be an aether before we can have anything like fields, matter,
spacetime, or even Wheeler's quantum foam.
That is why we have to be careful with meanings here. What Einstein
was referring to as 'empty space' is more akin to nothingness than the
space we usually talk about, also referred to as 'spacetime'. Remember
that at the time Einstein wrote his 1920 essay "The Ether and the
Theory of Relativity", the Big Bang and inflation theories were still
in their infancy. 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', or the difference between a vacuum and a 'false
vacuum', as Guth likes to call it.
We must not to confuse the concept of space outlined by inflation
theories with Einstein's gravitational aether. EMR and ZPR are
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.
Extension is a material property not applicable to Einstein's aether.
Density is also a non-applicable property when describing the aether,
it is only applicable when describing matter. Spacetime is material,
and properties like density and extension do apply. The universe
inflates as radiation creates spacetime, that's why Alan Guth calls it
a 'false vacuum'.
Einstein's gravitational aether does not represent an absolute frame.
The aether is not material, therefore, it can't represent a
background, it isn't quantized like material space. Einstein was
correct in his claim of a background free universe in the sense that
there are no landmarks to be used as reference to motion or elapsed
time. How could a non-material aether represent a preferred frame if
it lacks any landmarks or coordinates?
But he saw that we needed a metric, that we couldn't accurately
describe reality without taking into account what each body in the
metric was doing. He saw that in order to explain events according to
fact each point had to be connected to all the other points. Without a
metric there are things like gravity, rotation, acceleration, inertia,
and non-locality, which can't be explained. And what else is this
metric if is isn't a mathematical representation of the all pervading
and unifying aether?
Einstein's intuition and common sense told him that, in order to
explain inertia and gravitation, there couldn't be this bunch of
separated and unconnected rigid bodies (Newton's billiard ball model)
as he conceived the idea, the notion of a gravitational aether, a
continuous field from which all of reality, or spacetime, emerges as
objects interact with each other. This continuous field is the basis
for the General Theory of Relativity.
He also realized that there couldn't be an absolute frame of
reference, it would invalidate Relativity, by being relative to a
fixed frame, things wouldn't need to be relative to each other, and
there would be no relativistic effects, which we already know is
contrary to the facts. There is no need for an absolute frame of
reference when you have an infinitely divisible substrate from which
everything emerges. The aether is a spatially boundless but physically
finite substance. Energy is finite. Mass is finite. Finite because if
it weren't then we wouldn't be having phenomena like time dilation and
space contraction, there would be no need for energy conservation.
Zeno was right, the aether is infinitely divisible... but, physically
finite.
Imagine a totally empty space with no boundaries, what do you have?
You have Basil Hiley's pre-space, and since it lacks any landmarks to
use as reference points, you are unable to measure extension or
motion, thus you can't tell size nor distance. Space becomes an
unnecessary concept. This is the main reason Einstein stopped using
the aether concept for a while, even saying it was redundant... until
a few years later. This is also why there is no violation of the
Principle of Relativity. According to Relativity, things are not
relative to empty space, things are relative to the universe. If they
were relative to empty space, as all objects would have to move in
relation to absolute space and time, there would be no need to include
covariance as we explain acceleration, but the reality is that we do
need covariance to accurately describe objects under acceleration,
especially when moving at relativistic speeds. Since the aether's
energy is finite; time, space and therefore matter, will contract and
dilate accordingly, while mass (the amount of process) will increase
or decrease, automatically adjusting to present spacetime conditions
and thermal requirements as matter follows Nature's fundamental laws.
Because the aether is physically finite, matter and energy are also
finite at any given moment, but infinite as a function of time and
transformation.
Even though proportions and ratios are kept constant, spacetime
dimensions must be constantly adjusted to fit each inertial frame.
The aether is a single entity, it has no parts or components, yet, it
contains everything that exists in spacetime. Einstein's aether isn't
bound by time but by topological properties, a set of ratios
determined at the aether scale; frame independent and fundamental
constants. A very small number of fixed laws by which all matter and
space must abide. Physical (real) but non material quantities
(topological). Time independent continuity and connectedness. We can
also call it topological space, inertial space, or momentum space.
Lorentz invariant values originate at the aether level, they are real
but non-material ratios, hidden dimensions which help determine
geometrical properties of objects in spacetime. It is the level at
which frame independent constants like the propagation speed of fields
are set. And thanks to these frame independent constants the universe
is isometric. Take the fine structure constant for example, change its
value and you get a totally different universe.
What did Murray Gell-Mann use to create his multidimensional geometric
structure? A bunch of extra, hidden dimensions, or fundamental
topological values, that could represent reality. He learned that by
manipulating this structure he could reproduce real world
interactions. As he placed his extra dimensions on to this new
geometry he found that he needed a few more to complete this geometry,
to fill the gaps, so to speak. He predicted what some of these
fundamental particles would be before they were even found, earning
himself the Nobel prize in the process.
But spacetime is four dimensional and all these other hidden
dimensions rule matter but are not matter as such. That's why we now
use Lie and non-commutative algebras, not analytical geometry, to
describe reality.
We could take a pound of earth and turn it into a pound of gold if we
could manipulate and rearrange its parts, as long as we could maintain
and continue to use the same fundamental constants.
Because the speed of light is a frame independent constant, and
because the aether is physically finite, there is a need for the
principles of relativity and equivalency, we need to include
covariance and deformation in order to accurately describe reality.
Matter changes, but not the fundamental values it follows as it forms.
c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space.
This relationship holds true because the speed of light (and of all
electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at the aether level. It
remains constant in all frames because it is not dependent on a
coordinate system like matter with mass is. Since ratios like
permeability and permittivity are determined at the aether level, and
the aether is immaterial and not bound by spacetime laws, 'c' can be
frame independent.
The speed of light is frame independent, but it is dependent on the
physical properties of free space, and free space is immaterial, with
no landmarks, therefore, not subject to the laws of Relativity, like
objects in spacetime are. That's why the speed of light is a constant
unaffected by the speed of the observer or the observed.
The speed of light sets the scales. Because energy is finite, and
because the speed of light must remain constant for fields to continue
to work regardless of spacetime conditions, there are time and space
distortions between the observer and the observed when dealing with
relativistic speeds within the same frame of reference. This is where
the principles of relativity and equivalency come from. That's why we
get time dilation and length contraction. Because a field's speed does
not change regardless of relative motion, and because energy is
finite, all the other parameters must be adjusted around the speed of
light.
Since the speed of light, hence, the propagation speed of fields, must
remain constant for all the other fundamental constants to continue to
be proportionally the same, process (mass) has to increase in order to
keep up... to a point, once you go over the speed limit and fields
can't keep up, matter disintegrates.
Time and length contractions are real. They need to be in order for
the Equivalency Principle and the laws of Thermodynamics to hold.
Spacetime, or material space, is a product, not a fundamental or
primary component of reality, and that is precisely what is claimed by
Relativity. In spacetime, space-like separation is relative. If
spacetime were primary then spatial extension wouldn't be variable,
but it is, it shrinks and expands, just like clocks run slower or
faster, depending on energy usage vs. energy available.
Since the speed of light is constant, and closely related to the
Compton wavelength and the Schwarzschild radius, the universe is the
same everywhere, independently from existing spacetime conditions.
This means that atoms, matter, will always have the same properties
and behave the same way everywhere, regardless of the existing
spacetime conditions, that a carbon atom will look and behave like a
carbon atom anywhere in the universe.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 02:18:14 AM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 4:48=A0pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Empty space was, then came the universe.
Wrong, space is a part of the universe, there is no such thing as
"outside, or space outside", beyond the universe is an oxymoron.
The universe includes space, the definitition of the universe is, all
of that which exists, including all of the known by man and the yet to
know and space is known, it can be sensed.
But the Kantian mystics will agree with you, they have several
definitons for each and every man made concept, even meanings which
contradict each other.
e.g. Kantians will tell you that space is where the tree is and isn't
at the exact same moment, i.e. they want their cake and to eat it
too.
And they just change the meaning of space to suit, and they do that by
pretendng that by preceding the concept with an adjective, it
magically and totally changes the meaning of the concept which it
precedes.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 04:33:05 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:93cf6125-65cf-4801-a372-045778eae420@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 4:48 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Empty space was, then came the universe.
Wrong, space is a part of the universe, there is no such thing as
"outside, or space outside", beyond the universe is an oxymoron.
The universe includes space, the definitition of the universe is, all
of that which exists, including all of the known by man and the yet to
know and space is known, it can be sensed.
But the Kantian mystics will agree with you, they have several
definitons for each and every man made concept, even meanings which
contradict each other.
e.g. Kantians will tell you that space is where the tree is and isn't
at the exact same moment, i.e. they want their cake and to eat it
too.
And they just change the meaning of space to suit, and they do that by
pretendng that by preceding the concept with an adjective, it
magically and totally changes the meaning of the concept which it
precedes.
Michael Gordge
And then they ascribe properties to that which is not and has no properties,
whilst ignoring any properties is should have in parallel to the properties
they ascribe to it.
The all-pervading aether should have a varying density as air does, with
weather patterns to distort and shimmer images.
The mystics mystify themselves.
They are of the class of homo neanderthalensis that state,
"I think it must be, therefore it is".
Having seized upon what, to them, is an explanation, it becomes
a truth which no logic can shake, and is then reinforced by others
of like stupidity to whom they will listen, ignoring any counter
argument with utterances of "you don't understand". They do, of
course, and you should listen to them. Chattering gorillas, all of them.
However, it must be said that their main opponents, the relativists, are
of like mind, merely of opposite polarity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 06:01:50 AM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 7:33=A0pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:93cf6125-65cf-4801-a372-045778eae420@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 4:48 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Empty space was, then came the universe.
Wrong, space is a part of the universe, there is no such thing as
"outside, or space outside", beyond the universe is an oxymoron.
The universe includes space, the definitition of the universe is, all
of that which exists, including all of the known by man and the yet to
know and space is known, it can be sensed.
But the Kantian mystics will agree with you, they have several
definitons for each and every man made concept, even meanings which
contradict each other.
e.g. Kantians will tell you that space is where the tree is and isn't
at the exact same moment, i.e. they want their cake and to eat it
too.
And they just change the meaning of space to suit, and they do that by
pretendng that by preceding the concept with an adjective, it
magically and totally changes the meaning of the concept which it
precedes.
Michael Gordge
And then they ascribe properties to that which is not and has no propertie=
s,
whilst ignoring any properties is should have in parallel to the propertie=
s
they ascribe to it.
The all-pervading aether should have a varying density as air does, with
weather patterns to distort and shimmer images.
The mystics mystify themselves.
They are of the class of homo neanderthalensis that state,
"I think it must be, therefore it is".
Having seized upon what, to them, is an explanation, it becomes
a truth which no logic can shake, and is then reinforced by others
of like stupidity to whom they will listen, ignoring any counter
argument with utterances of "you don't understand". They do, of
course, and you should listen to them. Chattering gorillas, all of them.
The noise makers!
You get called a fucker of sheep for thinking rationally around here,
but good to see another voice of reason.
cheers
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 07:07:34 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:63febd4e-662b-4ed7-b55b-ce05deb33f74@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 7:33 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:93cf6125-65cf-4801-a372-045778eae420@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 4:48 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Empty space was, then came the universe.
Wrong, space is a part of the universe, there is no such thing as
"outside, or space outside", beyond the universe is an oxymoron.
The universe includes space, the definitition of the universe is, all
of that which exists, including all of the known by man and the yet to
know and space is known, it can be sensed.
But the Kantian mystics will agree with you, they have several
definitons for each and every man made concept, even meanings which
contradict each other.
e.g. Kantians will tell you that space is where the tree is and isn't
at the exact same moment, i.e. they want their cake and to eat it
too.
And they just change the meaning of space to suit, and they do that by
pretendng that by preceding the concept with an adjective, it
magically and totally changes the meaning of the concept which it
precedes.
Michael Gordge
And then they ascribe properties to that which is not and has no
properties,
whilst ignoring any properties is should have in parallel to the
properties
they ascribe to it.
The all-pervading aether should have a varying density as air does, with
weather patterns to distort and shimmer images.
The mystics mystify themselves.
They are of the class of homo neanderthalensis that state,
"I think it must be, therefore it is".
Having seized upon what, to them, is an explanation, it becomes
a truth which no logic can shake, and is then reinforced by others
of like stupidity to whom they will listen, ignoring any counter
argument with utterances of "you don't understand". They do, of
course, and you should listen to them. Chattering gorillas, all of them.
: The noise makers!
: You get called a fucker of sheep for thinking rationally around here,
: but good to see another voice of reason.
: cheers
: MG
Yes indeed, Michael, but one should point out that science
advances on the tools the engineer provides, be it beam balance,
telescope, microscope, thermometer, refrigerator or Large Hadron
Collider.
The engineer in his turn is dependent on what new discoveries
the scientist can make and turn into something useful. Look around
the home and everything you see above the dust level has been
manufactured or processed in some way, we even have vacuum
cleaners to deal with the dust.
In 100 years, no engineer has made any use whatsoever of aether
or Einstein's relativity. That should tell a story because engineers
are a highly inventive lot and if there is money to be made, it WILL
be done.
Having disposed of crackpot theories concerning light, what else is
left? What is the next step?
I'll tell you. It is light accelerator for interplanetary communications.
It takes far too long to communicate with Spirit and Opportunity
on Mars or Cassini orbiting Saturn. This blind faith that light
has one speed only is an absurdity quickly disproven by Sagnac
and by this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Nature and technology is already giving light's speed a boost,
it is the responsibility of the engineer to do so on a grander scale
and leave the crackpot "scientists" in the dust.
Sagnac is a light accelerator, but few realize it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
They don't realize it because the scientist tells them it cannot be done,
and for that reason there is no funding available for development.
The scientist is a fool, robbing himself of an important area of physics
by his blind ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 04:33:17 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 10:07=A0pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
What is the next step?
I'll tell you. It is light accelerator for interplanetary communications.
It takes far too long to communicate with Spirit and Opportunity
on Mars or Cassini orbiting Saturn. This blind faith that light
has one speed only is an absurdity quickly disproven by Sagnac
and by this:
=A0http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Nature and technology is already giving light's speed a boost,
it is the responsibility of the engineer to do so on a grander scale
and leave the crackpot "scientists" in the dust.
Sagnac is a light accelerator, but few realize it.
=A0http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
They don't realize it because the scientist tells them it cannot be done,
and for that reason there is no funding available for development.
The scientist is a fool, robbing himself of an important area of physics
by his blind ignorance.
What a welcome breath of fresh air you are. Keep it coming, I must
check out those web sites, I read or heard the other day that a group
of German scientists claim they have propelled an object on earth
faster than the speed of light, which was treated as a hoax by the
main stream science claiming the energy required is not possible.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 06:13:25 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:0454ea4e-913f-417b-960f-e4f86d56b739@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 10:07 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote:
What is the next step?
I'll tell you. It is light accelerator for interplanetary communications.
It takes far too long to communicate with Spirit and Opportunity
on Mars or Cassini orbiting Saturn. This blind faith that light
has one speed only is an absurdity quickly disproven by Sagnac
and by this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Nature and technology is already giving light's speed a boost,
it is the responsibility of the engineer to do so on a grander scale
and leave the crackpot "scientists" in the dust.
Sagnac is a light accelerator, but few realize it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
They don't realize it because the scientist tells them it cannot be done,
and for that reason there is no funding available for development.
The scientist is a fool, robbing himself of an important area of physics
by his blind ignorance.
: What a welcome breath of fresh air you are. Keep it coming, I must
: check out those web sites, I read or heard the other day that a group
: of German scientists claim they have propelled an object on earth
: faster than the speed of light, which was treated as a hoax by the
: main stream science claiming the energy required is not possible.
Here's some real gobbledegook from a so-called "physicist" displaying
his total ignorance of logical reasoning:
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle."
Ref: http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html#2
Of course he doesn't say who these "prominent theoretical physicists"
are, if he ever had he'd have left himself wide open to a law suit for
libel.
Nor does he actually say what this "principle of relativity" actually is.
(Galileo did in "Dialogue", an amusing and instructive paper from 1632.
Ref http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html)
What he does do is give an example and you are expected to know
what it is without any proof. That makes it an axiom, a concept
so primitive that it requires no proof to be believed. An axiom is
slightly different from a postulate, an axiom is believed by all that
are sane, whereas a postulate is temporarily accepted for the
purpose of debate and belief can be suspended. One does not
believe in magic, but magic is postulated when reading Harry Potter,
for example, because Harry Potter is fiction and there is no story
without Harry flying on a broom carrying a wand. The sane reader
accepts the postulate and suspends his normal beliefs in order to
enjoy the story.
The example he gives is contained in the opening paragraph of
his paper, which he then discusses in the second paragraph.
Ref : http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
It is :
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet"
He has used the term "relative motion" without first defining it. If the
reader does
not know what this "relative motion" is then he is lost, but of course he
does
know intuitively, we all do.
He then goes on in paragraph 2 with:
"Examples of this sort [...] suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics
as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the
first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which
will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate...."
There is no "conjecture", the principle of relativity already has the status
of an axiom. It can be and is believed without proof and needs no "raising"
to the status of a postulate, for a postulate, like Harry Potter's magic,
only
holds good for the purpose of the story or debate.
So what is this "relative motion" mathematically?
It is simply the motion of A as measured or observed by B, which is
in all ways identical to the motion of B as observed or measured by A,
the observer having no motion of his own relative to himself.
What is the measurement? It is distance divided by time.
The speed of A in the frame of B is the speed of B in the frame of A.
IF there is a difference, then A meets B at a different time or place
to when B meets A, an absurdity.
Now we come to a third observer, C, who finds A has some motion
relative to C and B has some motion relative to C, and concludes
A has some motion relative to B (it may be zero, as when a plane
and its passengers have the same motion relative to an airport).
The measure of that motion is vA - vB. A passenger on the plane
approaches the airport at 503 mph, the plane approaches at 500 mph,
the passenger walked the aisle of the plane (relative to the plane) at 3
mph.
503-500 = 3. ALL speeds are relative to some reference point, no
exceptions.
So, to respond to your query, I ask you to state the velocity
of hadron A as seen by hadron B, postulating that the speeds of
hadron A and B are the speed of light (relative to the collider)
in this animation:
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 07:32:49 AM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 3:18=A0am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:48=A0pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Empty space was, then came the universe.
Wrong, space is a part of the universe, there is no such thing as
"outside, or space outside", beyond the universe is an oxymoron.
The universe includes space, the definitition of the universe is, all
of that which exists, including all of the known by man and the yet to
know and space is known, it can be sensed.
But the Kantian mystics will agree with you, they have several
definitons for each and every man made concept, even meanings which
contradict each other.
e.g. Kantians will tell you that space is where the tree is and isn't
at the exact same moment, i.e. they want their cake and to eat it
too.
And they just change the meaning of space to suit, and they do that by
pretendng that by preceding the concept with an adjective, it
magically and totally changes the meaning of the concept which it
precedes.
Michael Gordge
There is free space, then there is Alan Guth's 'false vacuum'. There
is Newton's classical space, then there is Timothy Boyer's material
space and Wheeler's quantum foam. Get it?
Next time, read the whole post before posting a reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 10:45:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:18:14 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:48 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Empty space was, then came the universe.
Wrong, space is a part of the universe, there is no such thing as
"outside, or space outside", beyond the universe is an oxymoron.
ahahaha... There is no space at all. Space is a perceptual illusion.
Has anybody learned anything from quantum entanglement and quantum
tunneling? Nonlocality = nonspatiality.
Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 04:44:07 PM |
|
|
On Dec 29, 1:45=A0am, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
ahahaha... There is no space at all. Space is a perceptual
illusion.
Oh gawd not another fucking Kantian mystic.
Before your brand new and invented definition for space, what had you
and your brain dead ilk identify space as, and how did you know it
existed?
How does your brand new invented version of space, a perceptual
illusion, differentiate space from anything else, e.g. your very close
cousin's god, and from water and car and tree?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 06:26:48 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:12223d58-c53f-475c-a8fc-dd50177c1c41@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 1:45 am, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
ahahaha... There is no space at all. Space is a perceptual
illusion.
Oh gawd not another fucking Kantian mystic.
Before your brand new and invented definition for space, what had you
and your brain dead ilk identify space as, and how did you know it
existed?
How does your brand new invented version of space, a perceptual
illusion, differentiate space from anything else, e.g. your very close
cousin's god, and from water and car and tree?
Michael Gordge
Beware of Savain, keep a padlock on your arse.
<traveler@noasskissers.net>
stated his heartfelt desire and declared his homosexuality
in news:3r4ki3539l40nrg6f1b0v2kec49jpng7tl@4ax.com...
Quote:
: ahahaha... Bend over, Wabi. I'll show you some coordinates. ahahaha...
: AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Unquote.
He attempts to imitate ahahanson, who is no fool but enjoys Jew-baiting
more than physics. Savain is just another crank.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 05:54:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:44:07 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[snip crap]
ahahaha... You're a fucking idiot, Gordge. And an ***** kisser to boot.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 06:32:01 PM |
|
|
On Dec 29, 8:54=A0am, Traveler <trave...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:44:07 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[snip crap]
ahahaha...
Stop your nervous laughing and answer the fucking questions, ewe
knuckle-dragging queer.
What did your dopey ilk call space BEFORE you and your retards
invented the new meaning for it?
HOW did you know what to re-invent a definition of, if it was only a
perceptual fucking illusion?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Aether and Relativity |
28 Dec 2007 07:06:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:32:01 -0800 (PST), ***** kisser Michael Gordge
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[snip crap]
ahahaha... ***** you, Gordge. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
