In solid state physics there is a concept called Phonons, which are vibrations in a solid (such as a solid crystal).
These are described as "quantized sound waves". They have particle-like qualities (similar to Bosons), and show the same particle/wave duality as real particles do - except of course in this case, these are 100% waves. They are even described using QM formulas. I also find it interesting that the quantization of these sound particles even shows when the crystal lattice is not discrete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Why do I bring this up?
Because I recently read a book called "Classical Wave Theory of Matter" at www.verumversa.com, and the concept there is that all of QM and relativity can be derived by this simple premise: that space is an "elastic solid" and that light/matter are vibrations in it (pure waves). Robert Close derives a special relativity and the Dirac equation (and more) based on that (relativity applies to any kind of wave actually - so it applies to Phonons as well).
Illustrative example of how SR can be derived from waves can be found here:
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterRelativity.htm
I could find no contradiction with any experiment (it is consistent with the null result of MM, for instance), or with any mathematical formula (it uses the exact same mathematics - so it is also consisten with the tensor of GR, for instance ).
I would very much like to discuss the book with someone who is interested!
Chantal
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 1 2012, 12:49 PM)
In solid state physics there is a concept called Phonons, which are vibrations in a solid (such as a solid crystal).
These are described as "quantized sound waves". They have particle-like qualities (similar to Bosons), and show the same particle/wave duality as real particles do - except of course in this case, these are 100% waves. They are even described using QM formulas. I also find it interesting that the quantization of these sound particles even shows when the crystal lattice is not discrete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Why do I bring this up?
Because I recently read a book called "Classical Wave Theory of Matter" at www.verumversa.com, and the concept there is that all of QM and relativity can be derived by this simple premise: that space is an "elastic solid" and that light/matter are vibrations in it (pure waves). Robert Close derives a special relativity and the Dirac equation (and more) based on that (relativity applies to any kind of wave actually - so it applies to Phonons as well).
Illustrative example of how SR can be derived from waves can be found here:
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterRelativity.htm
I could find no contradiction with any experiment (it is consistent with the null result of MM, for instance), or with any mathematical formula (it uses the exact same mathematics - so it is also consisten with the tensor of GR, for instance ).
I would very much like to discuss the book with someone who is interested!
Chantal
In the hope that I'm understanding what you're saying... I'll offer up what I have been putting forth here since January...
I believe the cosmos is totally filled and connected by a web of gravity flux... Which sounds very much like your 'elastic solid'... Because I believe the speed of gravity, with some backing, is nearly instantaneous if not completely so.
That this flux then is the highway of the cosmos... For everything that travels within it... From neutrinos to galaxies... Gravity keeps everything more or less in place...
Specifically in regard to your post now.., that of photons.., which I see as particles only..., but that they vibrate, oscillate, rotate or whatever in their travel.., and with this particular frequency they react with the flux of gravity to produce waves that are able to be perceived as light by our brains... That the particle may slip through a slit.., but it will then continue to spray visible light waves from itself, by it's interaction with flux..., wherever it goes...
It also may explain virtual particles jumping out of nowhere.., and then back into nowhere again... Could it be that they split and jumped out of the flux because of some collision within...? Only to recombine again., into their no visible light producing state...
There are many other thoughts that are consistent with this idea of 'gravity' being thee sole unifying force... Your elastic, non visible, solid.
The rest of what I believe can certainly be read in the listing of my previous posts if you care to...
Thanks...
These are described as "quantized sound waves". They have particle-like qualities (similar to Bosons), and show the same particle/wave duality as real particles do - except of course in this case, these are 100% waves. They are even described using QM formulas. I also find it interesting that the quantization of these sound particles even shows when the crystal lattice is not discrete.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
Why do I bring this up?
Because I recently read a book called "Classical Wave Theory of Matter" at www.verumversa.com, and the concept there is that all of QM and relativity can be derived by this simple premise: that space is an "elastic solid" and that light/matter are vibrations in it (pure waves). Robert Close derives a special relativity and the Dirac equation (and more) based on that (relativity applies to any kind of wave actually - so it applies to Phonons as well).
Illustrative example of how SR can be derived from waves can be found here:
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterRelativity.htm
I could find no contradiction with any experiment (it is consistent with the null result of MM, for instance), or with any mathematical formula (it uses the exact same mathematics - so it is also consisten with the tensor of GR, for instance ).
I would very much like to discuss the book with someone who is interested!
Chantal
In the hope that I'm understanding what you're saying... I'll offer up what I have been putting forth here since January...
I believe the cosmos is totally filled and connected by a web of gravity flux... Which sounds very much like your 'elastic solid'... Because I believe the speed of gravity, with some backing, is nearly instantaneous if not completely so.
That this flux then is the highway of the cosmos... For everything that travels within it... From neutrinos to galaxies... Gravity keeps everything more or less in place...
Specifically in regard to your post now.., that of photons.., which I see as particles only..., but that they vibrate, oscillate, rotate or whatever in their travel.., and with this particular frequency they react with the flux of gravity to produce waves that are able to be perceived as light by our brains... That the particle may slip through a slit.., but it will then continue to spray visible light waves from itself, by it's interaction with flux..., wherever it goes...
It also may explain virtual particles jumping out of nowhere.., and then back into nowhere again... Could it be that they split and jumped out of the flux because of some collision within...? Only to recombine again., into their no visible light producing state...
There are many other thoughts that are consistent with this idea of 'gravity' being thee sole unifying force... Your elastic, non visible, solid.
The rest of what I believe can certainly be read in the listing of my previous posts if you care to...
Thanks...
Re gravity:
In the book this is described roughly as follows (note the book is obviously much more accurate than I can explain here and contains all the math, but I hope to get the idea across):
The tensor of GR (Minkowski spacetime) can also be described in terms of 3D Euclidian space where density as the "4th" dimension (this can be shown mathematically to be equivalent). So in this model, the elastic solid (our space) has varying density. Density is higher where lots of waves are (where matter is).
What happens to a wave as it travels through a medium with changing density? You get refraction - a light beam for instance would bend towards areas of higher density. That would explain the bending of light around massive objects and gravitational lensing.
Since in this theory matter are also waves, this results in an attraction (gravity). The force "appears" to be instantaneous, as the density throughout space is already there, everywhere, so nothing has to "travel" at all. If you mean speed due to gravitational waves (changes in density), then those changes I would think travel at the speed of light (but I am not sure if this is mentioned).
In the book this is described roughly as follows (note the book is obviously much more accurate than I can explain here and contains all the math, but I hope to get the idea across):
The tensor of GR (Minkowski spacetime) can also be described in terms of 3D Euclidian space where density as the "4th" dimension (this can be shown mathematically to be equivalent). So in this model, the elastic solid (our space) has varying density. Density is higher where lots of waves are (where matter is).
What happens to a wave as it travels through a medium with changing density? You get refraction - a light beam for instance would bend towards areas of higher density. That would explain the bending of light around massive objects and gravitational lensing.
Since in this theory matter are also waves, this results in an attraction (gravity). The force "appears" to be instantaneous, as the density throughout space is already there, everywhere, so nothing has to "travel" at all. If you mean speed due to gravitational waves (changes in density), then those changes I would think travel at the speed of light (but I am not sure if this is mentioned).
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 1 2012, 04:35 PM)
Re gravity:
In the book this is described roughly as follows (note the book is obviously much more accurate than I can explain here and contains all the math, but I hope to get the idea across):
The tensor of GR (Minkowski spacetime) can also be described in terms of 3D Euclidian space where density as the "4th" dimension (this can be shown mathematically to be equivalent). So in this model, the elastic solid (our space) has varying density. Density is higher where lots of waves are (where matter is).
What happens to a wave as it travels through a medium with changing density? You get refraction - a light beam for instance would bend towards areas of higher density. That would explain the bending of light around massive objects and gravitational lensing.
Since in this theory matter are also waves, this results in an attraction (gravity). The force "appears" to be instantaneous, as the density throughout space is already there, everywhere, so nothing has to "travel" at all. If you mean speed due to gravitational waves (changes in density), then those changes I would think travel at the speed of light (but I am not sure if this is mentioned).
Yes... Exactly.., regarding the gravity lenses, etc...
And now I'm due to leave for a few hours...... Bummer..
But I will say that we are in tune... Gravity has various densities and does indeed divert photon travel and refract the light they produce... The speed of gravity is said to have been measured as at least 2 x 10^17 c... If I remember correctly...
What I meant by traveling is that the flux is used by those particles which can only travel up to c max. Everything from particles to galaxies... It keeps them in line so to speak... A traffic director.
I do have to go right now... I am due at a meeting in 40 minutes...
Talk more later.
In the book this is described roughly as follows (note the book is obviously much more accurate than I can explain here and contains all the math, but I hope to get the idea across):
The tensor of GR (Minkowski spacetime) can also be described in terms of 3D Euclidian space where density as the "4th" dimension (this can be shown mathematically to be equivalent). So in this model, the elastic solid (our space) has varying density. Density is higher where lots of waves are (where matter is).
What happens to a wave as it travels through a medium with changing density? You get refraction - a light beam for instance would bend towards areas of higher density. That would explain the bending of light around massive objects and gravitational lensing.
Since in this theory matter are also waves, this results in an attraction (gravity). The force "appears" to be instantaneous, as the density throughout space is already there, everywhere, so nothing has to "travel" at all. If you mean speed due to gravitational waves (changes in density), then those changes I would think travel at the speed of light (but I am not sure if this is mentioned).
Yes... Exactly.., regarding the gravity lenses, etc...
And now I'm due to leave for a few hours...... Bummer..
But I will say that we are in tune... Gravity has various densities and does indeed divert photon travel and refract the light they produce... The speed of gravity is said to have been measured as at least 2 x 10^17 c... If I remember correctly...
What I meant by traveling is that the flux is used by those particles which can only travel up to c max. Everything from particles to galaxies... It keeps them in line so to speak... A traffic director.
I do have to go right now... I am due at a meeting in 40 minutes...
Talk more later.
@Korosten,
Looking at 'underwater relativity':-
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterR...imeDilation.swf
The two clocks aren't the same, the A sonar fires directly at the receiver and the B sonar is angled forwards so the signal reaches the receiver as the sub travels forwards through the water. If you want to draw any conclusion about identical clocks (one moving wrt the other) you need identical clocks.
-C2.
Edit .. link corrected.
Looking at 'underwater relativity':-
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterR...imeDilation.swf
The two clocks aren't the same, the A sonar fires directly at the receiver and the B sonar is angled forwards so the signal reaches the receiver as the sub travels forwards through the water. If you want to draw any conclusion about identical clocks (one moving wrt the other) you need identical clocks.
-C2.
Edit .. link corrected.
Viewed from the "rest frame" of the moving submarine B there is no angle either.
The second clock appears to be at an angle only because the sub B is moving as viewed from the A frame (or viewed from a third observer frame C where we are).
You could draw in another way to make it clearer:
In both cases the sonar clock emits a pulse in all directions.
If you measure the distance the pulse travels in the stationary case A, you will see that the pulse doesn't travel as far as in the second moving case B.
Do you agree that the clocks are the same that way?
Chantal
The second clock appears to be at an angle only because the sub B is moving as viewed from the A frame (or viewed from a third observer frame C where we are).
You could draw in another way to make it clearer:
In both cases the sonar clock emits a pulse in all directions.
If you measure the distance the pulse travels in the stationary case A, you will see that the pulse doesn't travel as far as in the second moving case B.
Do you agree that the clocks are the same that way?
Chantal
The A clock works if the sonar beam is fired in the direction of the receiver, the B clock doesn't. If you are intending to show that different clocks tick at different rates then you have succeeded.
-C2.
-C2.
You can make it so that the sound is emitted in all directions.
The receiver will register the sound whenever the wave front hits.
In A this is sooner than in B as the waves have to travel further in B. (The drawn line in the diagram is to see the distance between emitter and receiver.
You can use the same submarine for A and then for B - so it is the same clock.
Example B:
========
You can do the same thing in air:
Here our sound clock could be a speaker and a microphone, mounted say 2m apart in a similar fashion as in the submarines:
On the bottom is a speaker (emitting sound in alldirections), and on top a microphone.
If our device is standing still relative to the air, it will take approx. 2/340 seconds for the receiver to register the sound.
If our clock moves relative to the air, it will take longer.
If our clock moves at >= 340 m/s relative to the air, the sound will never reach the receiver!
Example C:
=======
We can create a "water" clock on the surface of the water: at the end of a boat there are 2 extensions say a few m apart.
On one end, someone makes water waves that go in all directions.
On the other end, someone checks when the wave front arrives (very low tech ;-).
If the boat is standing still in still water, it will take some amount of time t for the wave front to arrive.
If the boat is moving (or we are in a river), it will take longer than t for the wave front to arrive.
The factor is always the same: sqrt(c^2 - v^2), where c is the speed of the wave, and v is the speed of the boat/submarine/etc relative to the water/air etc
The receiver will register the sound whenever the wave front hits.
In A this is sooner than in B as the waves have to travel further in B. (The drawn line in the diagram is to see the distance between emitter and receiver.
You can use the same submarine for A and then for B - so it is the same clock.
Example B:
========
You can do the same thing in air:
Here our sound clock could be a speaker and a microphone, mounted say 2m apart in a similar fashion as in the submarines:
On the bottom is a speaker (emitting sound in alldirections), and on top a microphone.
If our device is standing still relative to the air, it will take approx. 2/340 seconds for the receiver to register the sound.
If our clock moves relative to the air, it will take longer.
If our clock moves at >= 340 m/s relative to the air, the sound will never reach the receiver!
Example C:
=======
We can create a "water" clock on the surface of the water: at the end of a boat there are 2 extensions say a few m apart.
On one end, someone makes water waves that go in all directions.
On the other end, someone checks when the wave front arrives (very low tech ;-).
If the boat is standing still in still water, it will take some amount of time t for the wave front to arrive.
If the boat is moving (or we are in a river), it will take longer than t for the wave front to arrive.
The factor is always the same: sqrt(c^2 - v^2), where c is the speed of the wave, and v is the speed of the boat/submarine/etc relative to the water/air etc
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 2 2012, 05:39 AM)
You can make it so that the sound is emitted in all directions.
The receiver will register the sound whenever the wave front hits.
In A this is sooner than in B as the waves have to travel further in B. (The drawn line in the diagram is to see the distance between emitter and receiver.
You can use the same submarine for A and then for B - so it is the same clock.
Example B:
========
You can do the same thing in air:
Here our sound clock could be a speaker and a microphone, mounted say 2m apart in a similar fashion as in the submarines:
On the bottom is a speaker (emitting sound in alldirections), and on top a microphone.
If our device is standing still relative to the air, it will take approx. 2/340 seconds for the receiver to register the sound.
If our clock moves relative to the air, it will take longer.
If our clock moves at >= 340 m/s relative to the air, the sound will never reach the receiver!
Example C:
=======
We can create a "water" clock on the surface of the water: at the end of a boat there are 2 extensions say a few m apart.
On one end, someone makes water waves that go in all directions.
On the other end, someone checks when the wave front arrives (very low tech ;-).
If the boat is standing still in still water, it will take some amount of time t for the wave front to arrive.
If the boat is moving (or we are in a river), it will take longer than t for the wave front to arrive.
The factor is always the same: sqrt(c^2 - v^2), where c is the speed of the wave, and v is the speed of the boat/submarine/etc relative to the water/air etc
A sound wave created at one point in water will travel in all directions until it hits an obstruction to reflect from... That's why a whale can say hello off the Florida coast and a whale near Spain will hear it... The first whale did not aim for that second whale... The same in reverse.., iow the reflection of the 'bounce'....
The example is simply another version of the clock with two mirrors facing each other and a photon bouncing between them. Both mirrors are at rest to each other.., even when that clock is on a space ship traveling at a high rate of speed. At any particular speed of movement the photon will have a longer path from the POV of a distant observer, but not within the spaceship. ONLY the distant observer will see the paths as being diagonal between the mirrors...
But that distant party is actually irrelevant, as the moving sub simply sees itself as being at rest with the distant observer moving past it to their rear... So in effect the distant observer is seeing a doppler effect.. The moving subs movement has no bearing on it's own clock. The presence of a distant observer's POV is supposed to help in visualization, but in fact it is misleading...
What is happening is that, as the photon is bouncing between the mirrors in the moving sub.., there is a lateral movement to both mirrors... But.., the distance between them does not increase... The same 'distance' is covered by the photon., but it is simply done *slower*... If you think light cannot be slowed, read on.
The same lateral movement is being applied to every atom and sub atomic particle that comprise the mirrors and in fact the entire sub and it's passengers too... That is inertia... And inertia is just another form of gravity. In fact I believe it is the only true gravity... But that's another subject...
In any case, everyone knows that gravity slows clocks... It does so by slowing every atom and sub-atomic particle that comprise those clocks.., along with the photon that is moving between this clock's mirrors.., and everything else of the ship that is bringing that inertial gravity about... The size of matter, it's mass, creates it's own particular gravity strength, moving fast(er) creates more.., all of which slows matter's operating rate from the sub atomic level up.. Because of the extra distance/gravity they all have to endure equally.
Replacing the rather slow moving sub., with a space ship whizzing through space at .5c, that ship will be enduring much more inertial gravity than the sub for the duration of it's trip.., so on it's return to earth, there will be a large discrepancy in the passengers physical ages... They will have aged much less than those on earth... Also their clocks would have been slowed an equivalent amount by that same increased strength of gravity experienced during the trip... Any biological material on the ship that could be tested for age would also be found to be not be as old as a similar piece left back on earth.., by a similar amount.. And further, if the metal of the ship could be tested for age.., it would be found to be younger too... Every atom of that moving ship was affected equally.., no matter what it was a part of.
What the distant observer sees of that clock in the sub or ship is, for every increment of movement of the photon between the mirrors, there is an equal lateral distance covered. That is the illusion of doppler.., just as any train's air horn will sound higher or lower depending on coming or going., even though it's own tone does not vary.
Motion equates to inertia.., and because of that inertial gravity *everything* is running slower. NOT because TIME has been slowed... That is a hallucination... Lose that idea entirely. The 'forward motion' of the ship alone is requiring every sub-atomic particle of that ship to include that extra distance into their normal travels and operations... Their orbits, spirals, or what have you... Causing them to take longer to do them. It is a physical thing... Everyone knows that individual operations take longer the more you have to do...
Of course no one on board, with their brains running slower.., and their light speed measuring devices running slower, will realize that... They all being comprised of those same slower running atoms... What the photon is doing is actually taking longer to get from one mirror to the other, than it would take if the ship was not moving. There is obviously no diagonal movement with both mirrors moving together... The photon is simply moving slower to allow for the additional forward motion distance to be considered and included too. Not because it wants to... It has to... All the atoms are struggling to keep up to that extra distance.., and it's added inertial gravity that is making it harder for them to do their job. Just as it would physically slow you and I if we were individual entities on Jupiter for instance... lol
Every atom of that ship has slowed to compensate for the ships forward motion... IOW, the forward motion has *caused* the physical slowing of every atom of the ship...
Time plays no part at all.. Gravity modifies the operating rates of atoms to any particular degree based on the strength of the gravity... It slows photons.., and it slows our perceptions an equal amount.., so c remains c to us, at any particular gravity strength...
The receiver will register the sound whenever the wave front hits.
In A this is sooner than in B as the waves have to travel further in B. (The drawn line in the diagram is to see the distance between emitter and receiver.
You can use the same submarine for A and then for B - so it is the same clock.
Example B:
========
You can do the same thing in air:
Here our sound clock could be a speaker and a microphone, mounted say 2m apart in a similar fashion as in the submarines:
On the bottom is a speaker (emitting sound in alldirections), and on top a microphone.
If our device is standing still relative to the air, it will take approx. 2/340 seconds for the receiver to register the sound.
If our clock moves relative to the air, it will take longer.
If our clock moves at >= 340 m/s relative to the air, the sound will never reach the receiver!
Example C:
=======
We can create a "water" clock on the surface of the water: at the end of a boat there are 2 extensions say a few m apart.
On one end, someone makes water waves that go in all directions.
On the other end, someone checks when the wave front arrives (very low tech ;-).
If the boat is standing still in still water, it will take some amount of time t for the wave front to arrive.
If the boat is moving (or we are in a river), it will take longer than t for the wave front to arrive.
The factor is always the same: sqrt(c^2 - v^2), where c is the speed of the wave, and v is the speed of the boat/submarine/etc relative to the water/air etc
A sound wave created at one point in water will travel in all directions until it hits an obstruction to reflect from... That's why a whale can say hello off the Florida coast and a whale near Spain will hear it... The first whale did not aim for that second whale... The same in reverse.., iow the reflection of the 'bounce'....
The example is simply another version of the clock with two mirrors facing each other and a photon bouncing between them. Both mirrors are at rest to each other.., even when that clock is on a space ship traveling at a high rate of speed. At any particular speed of movement the photon will have a longer path from the POV of a distant observer, but not within the spaceship. ONLY the distant observer will see the paths as being diagonal between the mirrors...
But that distant party is actually irrelevant, as the moving sub simply sees itself as being at rest with the distant observer moving past it to their rear... So in effect the distant observer is seeing a doppler effect.. The moving subs movement has no bearing on it's own clock. The presence of a distant observer's POV is supposed to help in visualization, but in fact it is misleading...
What is happening is that, as the photon is bouncing between the mirrors in the moving sub.., there is a lateral movement to both mirrors... But.., the distance between them does not increase... The same 'distance' is covered by the photon., but it is simply done *slower*... If you think light cannot be slowed, read on.
The same lateral movement is being applied to every atom and sub atomic particle that comprise the mirrors and in fact the entire sub and it's passengers too... That is inertia... And inertia is just another form of gravity. In fact I believe it is the only true gravity... But that's another subject...
In any case, everyone knows that gravity slows clocks... It does so by slowing every atom and sub-atomic particle that comprise those clocks.., along with the photon that is moving between this clock's mirrors.., and everything else of the ship that is bringing that inertial gravity about... The size of matter, it's mass, creates it's own particular gravity strength, moving fast(er) creates more.., all of which slows matter's operating rate from the sub atomic level up.. Because of the extra distance/gravity they all have to endure equally.
Replacing the rather slow moving sub., with a space ship whizzing through space at .5c, that ship will be enduring much more inertial gravity than the sub for the duration of it's trip.., so on it's return to earth, there will be a large discrepancy in the passengers physical ages... They will have aged much less than those on earth... Also their clocks would have been slowed an equivalent amount by that same increased strength of gravity experienced during the trip... Any biological material on the ship that could be tested for age would also be found to be not be as old as a similar piece left back on earth.., by a similar amount.. And further, if the metal of the ship could be tested for age.., it would be found to be younger too... Every atom of that moving ship was affected equally.., no matter what it was a part of.
What the distant observer sees of that clock in the sub or ship is, for every increment of movement of the photon between the mirrors, there is an equal lateral distance covered. That is the illusion of doppler.., just as any train's air horn will sound higher or lower depending on coming or going., even though it's own tone does not vary.
Motion equates to inertia.., and because of that inertial gravity *everything* is running slower. NOT because TIME has been slowed... That is a hallucination... Lose that idea entirely. The 'forward motion' of the ship alone is requiring every sub-atomic particle of that ship to include that extra distance into their normal travels and operations... Their orbits, spirals, or what have you... Causing them to take longer to do them. It is a physical thing... Everyone knows that individual operations take longer the more you have to do...
Of course no one on board, with their brains running slower.., and their light speed measuring devices running slower, will realize that... They all being comprised of those same slower running atoms... What the photon is doing is actually taking longer to get from one mirror to the other, than it would take if the ship was not moving. There is obviously no diagonal movement with both mirrors moving together... The photon is simply moving slower to allow for the additional forward motion distance to be considered and included too. Not because it wants to... It has to... All the atoms are struggling to keep up to that extra distance.., and it's added inertial gravity that is making it harder for them to do their job. Just as it would physically slow you and I if we were individual entities on Jupiter for instance... lol
Every atom of that ship has slowed to compensate for the ships forward motion... IOW, the forward motion has *caused* the physical slowing of every atom of the ship...
Time plays no part at all.. Gravity modifies the operating rates of atoms to any particular degree based on the strength of the gravity... It slows photons.., and it slows our perceptions an equal amount.., so c remains c to us, at any particular gravity strength...
I agree that in these examples "time" we normally talk about doesn't change.
In these examples, a "unit of time" is defined in the sonar clock as the wave front that moves between an emitter and a receiver:
Imagine the two subs, A in a stationary pool of water, and B in a moving river.
Now we outsiders tell them to start their sonar "clock". And after some amount of (our) time we tell them to stop and ask them to tell us the number of ticks they got.
If A got say 10 time unit ticks, then B must have counted fewer, as it was in a moving river where the wave fronts have to travel a longer distance.
Chantal
In these examples, a "unit of time" is defined in the sonar clock as the wave front that moves between an emitter and a receiver:
Imagine the two subs, A in a stationary pool of water, and B in a moving river.
Now we outsiders tell them to start their sonar "clock". And after some amount of (our) time we tell them to stop and ask them to tell us the number of ticks they got.
If A got say 10 time unit ticks, then B must have counted fewer, as it was in a moving river where the wave fronts have to travel a longer distance.
Chantal
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 2 2012, 03:45 PM)
I agree that in these examples "time" we normally talk about doesn't change.
In these examples, a "unit of time" is defined in the sonar clock as the wave front that moves between an emitter and a receiver:
Imagine the two subs, A in a stationary pool of water, and B in a moving river.
Now we outsiders tell them to start their sonar "clock". And after some amount of (our) time we tell them to stop and ask them to tell us the number of ticks they got.
If A got say 10 time unit ticks, then B must have counted fewer, as it was in a moving river where the wave fronts have to travel a longer distance.
Chantal
The subs.., one in still and one in flowing water would not be different in count...
Neither are moving... It is the water that is staying younger than both subs...
It is ONLY movement that creates relativity... And only things that are moving are operating at different rates than those that are not..., if they are in the same gravity field...
It is movement that creates the 'additional' gravity over what two otherwise identical situations experience... The one that is 'moving' causes it's atoms to work harder, therefore slower... Remember of course that all of us are always moving in more than a dozen ways at once. Even as we sit still at the computer... It's the *additional* movement we ourselves do that creates the 'slowing' process... So what we call rest here on earth is only because *we're* here... Someone on Jupiter would think we're going crazy with speed.., from their pov... While they grow old very much faster than we...
It is not time doing anything... It is the speed of the atoms doing what they do that creates the relativity... Relativity between any particular gravity field strength to all other gravity field strengths, whether they be stronger/slower or weaker/faster.
p.s.
If you're talking signals back to front and water flowing front to back.., that would be doppler.., not more or less clicks... They all would be delayed a few nanoseconds of earth's rotation around it's axis.. But once that offset was made.., the number of clicks would remain the same as if in still water...
If you're talking back to front and then back to back again, for one cycle.., while the water is flowing front to back..., the number of clicks would be as if in still water... The minimally shorter higher frequency doppler trip towards the front would be cancelled out by the same minimally longer shorter doppler frequency on it's way back to the back... But it would keep running at the same number of clicks compared to a sub in still water...
Keeping in mind I'm not saying the clicks themselves come together or move apart... It is ony that the receivers are moving into them or away from them that does the compressing or stretching. There would come to be a continuous shortening offset in the forward direction and a continous lengthening offset in the other direction... Neither actually changing the number of clicks...
In these examples, a "unit of time" is defined in the sonar clock as the wave front that moves between an emitter and a receiver:
Imagine the two subs, A in a stationary pool of water, and B in a moving river.
Now we outsiders tell them to start their sonar "clock". And after some amount of (our) time we tell them to stop and ask them to tell us the number of ticks they got.
If A got say 10 time unit ticks, then B must have counted fewer, as it was in a moving river where the wave fronts have to travel a longer distance.
Chantal
The subs.., one in still and one in flowing water would not be different in count...
Neither are moving... It is the water that is staying younger than both subs...
It is ONLY movement that creates relativity... And only things that are moving are operating at different rates than those that are not..., if they are in the same gravity field...
It is movement that creates the 'additional' gravity over what two otherwise identical situations experience... The one that is 'moving' causes it's atoms to work harder, therefore slower... Remember of course that all of us are always moving in more than a dozen ways at once. Even as we sit still at the computer... It's the *additional* movement we ourselves do that creates the 'slowing' process... So what we call rest here on earth is only because *we're* here... Someone on Jupiter would think we're going crazy with speed.., from their pov... While they grow old very much faster than we...
It is not time doing anything... It is the speed of the atoms doing what they do that creates the relativity... Relativity between any particular gravity field strength to all other gravity field strengths, whether they be stronger/slower or weaker/faster.
p.s.
If you're talking signals back to front and water flowing front to back.., that would be doppler.., not more or less clicks... They all would be delayed a few nanoseconds of earth's rotation around it's axis.. But once that offset was made.., the number of clicks would remain the same as if in still water...
If you're talking back to front and then back to back again, for one cycle.., while the water is flowing front to back..., the number of clicks would be as if in still water... The minimally shorter higher frequency doppler trip towards the front would be cancelled out by the same minimally longer shorter doppler frequency on it's way back to the back... But it would keep running at the same number of clicks compared to a sub in still water...
Keeping in mind I'm not saying the clicks themselves come together or move apart... It is ony that the receivers are moving into them or away from them that does the compressing or stretching. There would come to be a continuous shortening offset in the forward direction and a continous lengthening offset in the other direction... Neither actually changing the number of clicks...
Well I'm not sure about what your saying
It sounds like if that where the true then rocks on the moon would age faster than ones on earth.
And I don't think that has been found to be the case
It sounds like if that where the true then rocks on the moon would age faster than ones on earth.
And I don't think that has been found to be the case
Are you (I wanted to say "people", but that's way too much of a stretch..) for real, or just trolling to out-stupid each other?
Whitewolf is illiterate, so we should hang on his every word, I suppose.
Photo_guy is an imbecile, so we should... What? Offer to complete the pithing that his vet failed so miserably at?
Don't you dumbshits have a catbox to play in?
For those posters that can pour it out of a boot, why the hell do do stay here and play troll-games?
QUOTE (Granouille+Apr 2 2012, 10:51 PM)
Are you (I wanted to say "people", but that's way too much of a stretch..) for real, or just trolling to out-stupid each other?
Whitewolf is illiterate, so we should hang on his every word, I suppose.
Photo_guy is an imbecile, so we should... What? Offer to complete the pithing that his vet failed so miserably at?
Don't you dumbshits have a catbox to play in?
For those posters that can pour it out of a boot, why the hell do do stay here and play troll-games?
And your retarded
So you could call us the three stooges
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Apr 2 2012, 10:39 PM)
Well I'm not sure about what your saying
It sounds like if that where the true then rocks on the moon would age faster than ones on earth.
And I don't think that has been found to be the case
Yup... That's what I'm saying... But as you say, it's yet to be proven... But only because they haven't been able to determine the physical age of 'any' rocks.., afaik.... Only by the biological stuff that's in the layers can they determine the apparent ages of rocks. And that may only be 'close'... Because some areas of earth have a lot more gravity than others... So various parts of earth are aging at different speeds too...
I don't believe they found anything biological on the moon, so we'll have to wait for the day they figure out how to age rocks... In the meantime we'll have to assume that an atom in a human and an atom in a rock are basically doing the same thing.., and are affected by the same forces, no matter what their weight, etc. So they would age slower as would a spaceship passenger...
As for the moon.., it is one sixth the gravity of earth.., so on that alone things should age much faster than earth... I expect it would be linear, so 6 times as fast..., if that were the only consideration... But there is also inertia to consider... Inertial gravity will add to the one sixth mass gravity to slow aging back down... And likely surpass earth's 'effective' gravity... I had the speed of the moon in it's thirteen trips around the earth plus the distance of it's trip around the sun, following the earth in its orbit.., compared to the speed of the earth in it's orbit around the sun., to compare them... And I made an estimate back in my posts somewhere... I may have included the surface speed at the equators or other more minor aspects but I'm not sure right now. In any case I did make an estimate of the end result...
But I'm still trying to find what the moon landings produced by way of differences in their clock speeds compared to clock speeds here on earth. That difference could be correlated back to the 'effective' gravity strength of the moon, compared to earth...
Not that time itself would change on the moon of course.., because time does not exist... But clocks that were built and adjusted to run in one specific gravity.., earth in this case.., to keep track of the earth's rotation.., would run faster or slower when placed in other gravity strengths. Even 'atomic' clocks would do this because after all we're talking 'atoms' *being* slowed...
So there's two things clocks are good for... They keep track of the earth's rotation around it's axis, and they can also show how much difference there is in the strength of various gravity fields. But they don't record time... Time wouldn't be based on *earth's* rotation or size anyway.., even if it did exist... Who made *US* god... lol
Time does not exist... Except in people's heads.
It sounds like if that where the true then rocks on the moon would age faster than ones on earth.
And I don't think that has been found to be the case
Yup... That's what I'm saying... But as you say, it's yet to be proven... But only because they haven't been able to determine the physical age of 'any' rocks.., afaik.... Only by the biological stuff that's in the layers can they determine the apparent ages of rocks. And that may only be 'close'... Because some areas of earth have a lot more gravity than others... So various parts of earth are aging at different speeds too...
I don't believe they found anything biological on the moon, so we'll have to wait for the day they figure out how to age rocks... In the meantime we'll have to assume that an atom in a human and an atom in a rock are basically doing the same thing.., and are affected by the same forces, no matter what their weight, etc. So they would age slower as would a spaceship passenger...
As for the moon.., it is one sixth the gravity of earth.., so on that alone things should age much faster than earth... I expect it would be linear, so 6 times as fast..., if that were the only consideration... But there is also inertia to consider... Inertial gravity will add to the one sixth mass gravity to slow aging back down... And likely surpass earth's 'effective' gravity... I had the speed of the moon in it's thirteen trips around the earth plus the distance of it's trip around the sun, following the earth in its orbit.., compared to the speed of the earth in it's orbit around the sun., to compare them... And I made an estimate back in my posts somewhere... I may have included the surface speed at the equators or other more minor aspects but I'm not sure right now. In any case I did make an estimate of the end result...
But I'm still trying to find what the moon landings produced by way of differences in their clock speeds compared to clock speeds here on earth. That difference could be correlated back to the 'effective' gravity strength of the moon, compared to earth...
Not that time itself would change on the moon of course.., because time does not exist... But clocks that were built and adjusted to run in one specific gravity.., earth in this case.., to keep track of the earth's rotation.., would run faster or slower when placed in other gravity strengths. Even 'atomic' clocks would do this because after all we're talking 'atoms' *being* slowed...
So there's two things clocks are good for... They keep track of the earth's rotation around it's axis, and they can also show how much difference there is in the strength of various gravity fields. But they don't record time... Time wouldn't be based on *earth's* rotation or size anyway.., even if it did exist... Who made *US* god... lol
Time does not exist... Except in people's heads.
And oh ya one thing I forgot
US English isn't proper English
US English isn't proper English
QUOTE (Granouille+Apr 2 2012, 10:51 PM)
Are you (I wanted to say "people", but that's way too much of a stretch..) for real, or just trolling to out-stupid each other?
Whitewolf is illiterate, so we should hang on his every word, I suppose.
Photo_guy is an imbecile, so we should... What? Offer to complete the pithing that his vet failed so miserably at?
Don't you dumbshits have a catbox to play in?
For those posters that can pour it out of a boot, why the hell do do stay here and play troll-games?
When you can put down my ideas, which are very logical, thought out and stated.., and have actually been verified for the most part.., you will have some meaning in my life...
Until then you can join the list of bad-mouthers who can't explain why they say what they do... They're obviously only trying for a large number of posts with their many one liners.... To *seem* more important than they are...
Btw.., you're obviously not one who can pour it out of a boot.., or you'd be taking your own advice... So who should pay attention to what you think..?
Truth is.., no one can put my theory down... Go ahead and try...
Bye...
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Apr 2 2012, 08:56 PM)
And oh ya one thing I forgot
US English isn't proper English
Which version of English do you think you're using?
US English isn't proper English
Which version of English do you think you're using?
I just got done watching Rick Mercer talking to Americans on YT
Funny stuff
And Photo Guy what did you think of my question about radioactive decay
Is the decay rate the same in say meteorites as it is on earth
Funny stuff
And Photo Guy what did you think of my question about radioactive decay
Is the decay rate the same in say meteorites as it is on earth
... does anyone have questions or other input related to the ... topic I started ;-)?
photo_guy:
I think I know what you are saying, but the illustration I was refering to are only to illustrate how an effect such as time dilation or length contraction can be shown to be a property of waves in general.
The time dilation/length contraction can be observed in any wave setting if the clock/lenghts are defined in terms of waves also.
If you are looking at phonons in crystals, you get length contraction if the "lenght" is defined in terms of wave length. You will get time dilation and length contraction of sound in air, if the "clock" is based on waves and the length is also measured in wave length, and so on.
It might be clearer to read the explanations of the author himself :-). He has a short document just on the SR part (there is also a much more detailed chapeter in the book on this):
http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTh...rRelativity.doc
There is a paper on "Exact Description of Rotational Waves in an Elastic Solid" (published in Adv. Apl. Clifford Alebras)
http://www.classicalmatter.org/RotationWaves.pdf
Another paper published in foundations of physics entitled:Torsion Waves in Three Dimensions: Quantum Mechanics with a Twist
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fekcuv...5t/fulltext.pdf
Here is the link to the book that contains the above in more detail and also how he derives the Dirac equation from it etc.
http://www.classicalmatter.org/VerumVersa/...oryOfMatter.pdf
Chantal
photo_guy:
I think I know what you are saying, but the illustration I was refering to are only to illustrate how an effect such as time dilation or length contraction can be shown to be a property of waves in general.
The time dilation/length contraction can be observed in any wave setting if the clock/lenghts are defined in terms of waves also.
If you are looking at phonons in crystals, you get length contraction if the "lenght" is defined in terms of wave length. You will get time dilation and length contraction of sound in air, if the "clock" is based on waves and the length is also measured in wave length, and so on.
It might be clearer to read the explanations of the author himself :-). He has a short document just on the SR part (there is also a much more detailed chapeter in the book on this):
http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTh...rRelativity.doc
There is a paper on "Exact Description of Rotational Waves in an Elastic Solid" (published in Adv. Apl. Clifford Alebras)
http://www.classicalmatter.org/RotationWaves.pdf
Another paper published in foundations of physics entitled:Torsion Waves in Three Dimensions: Quantum Mechanics with a Twist
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fekcuv...5t/fulltext.pdf
Here is the link to the book that contains the above in more detail and also how he derives the Dirac equation from it etc.
http://www.classicalmatter.org/VerumVersa/...oryOfMatter.pdf
Chantal
QUOTE
If you're talking back to front and then back to back again, for one cycle.., while the water is flowing front to back..., the number of clicks would be as if in still water... The minimally shorter higher frequency doppler trip towards the front would be cancelled out by the same minimally longer shorter doppler frequency on it's way back to the back... But it would keep running at the same number of clicks compared to a sub in still water...
There is a difference:
Let's say the speed of the water wave on the surface, "c", is 2m/s (just some value).
Now let's say the boat moves relative to the water (can be a "still" boat in a moving river!) at 3m/c.
That means the wave signal will never reach the receiver. Never. So it does matter. Forward and backward does not cancel exactly.
Here is an illustration that might help:
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterR...ty/Velocity.swf
I agree with you that it's all down to movement... but at least in this thread I was hoping to talk about the ideas in the book or parts of it, and about phonons ... maybe we can start another thread and discuss your idea if you like, or maybe you can give me a link to your thread where your idea is discussed? ;-).
Chantal
@Korosten,
It would be interesting to try:
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterR...ty/Velocity.swf
with both submarines moving through the water. Can you do it?
-C2.
It would be interesting to try:
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterR...ty/Velocity.swf
with both submarines moving through the water. Can you do it?
-C2.
All that matters for the calculation is the difference in velocity between the two subs (assuming the subs both move at v < c :-).
So as in "our" relativity, we can ignore the medium for calculation (again assuming that v < c).
Is that what you mean?
Chantal
So as in "our" relativity, we can ignore the medium for calculation (again assuming that v < c).
Is that what you mean?
Chantal
@Korosten,
Is that a claim, a belief, or have you actually done the calculation? ( I Haven't yet).
-C2.
Is that a claim, a belief, or have you actually done the calculation? ( I Haven't yet).
-C2.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Apr 3 2012, 01:48 AM)
And Photo Guy what did you think of my question about radioactive decay
Is the decay rate the same in say meteorites as it is on earth
I didn't see a question on radioactive decay... Can you repeat it..?
If that's the entire question on the second line.., then no it can't be...
All rates of aging, decay, cycles, speeds, etc. change according to the strength of the gravity they are all in and experiencing together. Or alone.., as with your asteroid... Everything we perceive on earth will always appear to be the same to us.., no matter what planet we go with them...
Iow.., only that guy out in the middle of nowhere looking at all of the worlds and their happenings at once will see any difference between them... The difference being that they will all be running at different speeds... Although they will each think they are at rest...
They will each be at rest.., 'relative' to that guy out there in the middle of nowhere... lol Relativity is in the speed of physical aging and operating rates.., not in time flexing itself all over the place. Everything needs to be thought of in the physical sense... Time is not physical... It is senseless...
Is the decay rate the same in say meteorites as it is on earth
I didn't see a question on radioactive decay... Can you repeat it..?
If that's the entire question on the second line.., then no it can't be...
All rates of aging, decay, cycles, speeds, etc. change according to the strength of the gravity they are all in and experiencing together. Or alone.., as with your asteroid... Everything we perceive on earth will always appear to be the same to us.., no matter what planet we go with them...
Iow.., only that guy out in the middle of nowhere looking at all of the worlds and their happenings at once will see any difference between them... The difference being that they will all be running at different speeds... Although they will each think they are at rest...
They will each be at rest.., 'relative' to that guy out there in the middle of nowhere... lol Relativity is in the speed of physical aging and operating rates.., not in time flexing itself all over the place. Everything needs to be thought of in the physical sense... Time is not physical... It is senseless...
The same applies to sound in air. The doppler effect for instance in air can be computed by only using relative velocities... it's the same idea... again you can get "rid" of the medium in the calculation.
... I didn't do the calculation yet (if you insist I will.. but I am cooking dinner right now :-), but the same applies to the original Lorentz theory (before Einstein), where they assumed a medium.
I see no difference between these two examples and and that one for sound in water.
Chantal
... I didn't do the calculation yet (if you insist I will.. but I am cooking dinner right now :-), but the same applies to the original Lorentz theory (before Einstein), where they assumed a medium.
I see no difference between these two examples and and that one for sound in water.
Chantal
but the same applies to the original Lorentz theory..
hmm yes. He was forced to conclude that motion through (absolute) space caused submarines to get shorter and clocks to run slower. Short submarines with a slow clocks talked to other submarines which were even shorter and had clocks that ran even slower. I think (we) need to do that calculation to see what happens.
Bon appetit.
-C2.
hmm yes. He was forced to conclude that motion through (absolute) space caused submarines to get shorter and clocks to run slower. Short submarines with a slow clocks talked to other submarines which were even shorter and had clocks that ran even slower. I think (we) need to do that calculation to see what happens.
Bon appetit.
-C2.
ok, let's do it then :-).
One note: in this example, the submarines are not shortened as they are made of solid materials (and not sounds waves :-).
To make the actual true comparison one would have to consider the subs to be made of sound as well, but luckily in this example it doesn't have an effect on the calculation :-).
I am in the Swiss timezone, so you might have to wait until tomorrow....
Cheers,
Chantal :-)
One note: in this example, the submarines are not shortened as they are made of solid materials (and not sounds waves :-).
To make the actual true comparison one would have to consider the subs to be made of sound as well, but luckily in this example it doesn't have an effect on the calculation :-).
I am in the Swiss timezone, so you might have to wait until tomorrow....
Cheers,
Chantal :-)
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 3 2012, 06:18 AM)
... does anyone have questions or other input related to the ... topic I started ;-)?
photo_guy:
I think I know what you are saying, but the illustration I was refering to are only to illustrate how an effect such as time dilation or length contraction can be shown to be a property of waves in general.
The time dilation/length contraction can be observed in any wave setting if the clock/lenghts are defined in terms of waves also.
If you are looking at phonons in crystals, you get length contraction if the "lenght" is defined in terms of wave length. You will get time dilation and length contraction of sound in air, if the "clock" is based on waves and the length is also measured in wave length, and so on.
It might be clearer to read the explanations of the author himself :-). He has a short document just on the SR part (there is also a much more detailed chapeter in the book on this):
http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTh...rRelativity.doc
There is a paper on "Exact Description of Rotational Waves in an Elastic Solid" (published in Adv. Apl. Clifford Alebras)
http://www.classicalmatter.org/RotationWaves.pdf
Another paper published in foundations of physics entitled:Torsion Waves in Three Dimensions: Quantum Mechanics with a Twist
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fekcuv...5t/fulltext.pdf
Here is the link to the book that contains the above in more detail and also how he derives the Dirac equation from it etc.
http://www.classicalmatter.org/VerumVersa/...oryOfMatter.pdf
Chantal
Well.., I sort of thought we were on the same page... You're elastic solid and my changing flux.. ??
Secondly there is no time dilation as such... Things vary in speed.., which is distance over a duration.., but time does not change... Everyone seems to think so but they're wrong. With whatever you refer to, it should be in relation to a physical standard... Length contraction only occurs during acceleration... Or iow the creation of a wave, or originating motion of any kind... That includes adding to motion that is already ongoing...
So yes waves anywhere are contraction and expansion of the air, water, cycles, etc... Although water does not compress in any meaningful way, afaik.., there is still the compression of the atoms from the push end forward... And the inertial stretching on the relaxation of the push..., and possibly even more using a reverse 'pull back' action...
Forget the time settings of various clocks... They're only mechanical means to track something in relationship to whatever you tune them for. They're basically meaningless in explaining or understanding how anything actually works...
Time, as it's used as a measuring tool in our society, is absolutely flat... There's been a lot of work done over the years to make it so... So you can use it then to talk about your questions and explanations to another human in our society... But that's all it's good for... You can't shrink or expand it... It IS the benchmark in this gravity field...
As for the links.., I don't download docs... I got rid of 'office' and other doc readers...
One the first PDF, one the first things I noticed was this...
"
The ideal elastic solid has been an important model in the history of physics. It is a
good approximation for many processes in condensed matter. It was also the basis
of early theories of light because of its ability to support transverse waves.
Aether models fell into disuse at the end of the 19th century when experiments
failed to detect variations in light speed relative to the direction of the earth's
motion through space.
"
LOL... The *reason* they did not see variations in light speed is because inertial gravity affects *everything*, according to their relative speeds through the flux of the cosmos at any point of measurement... Gravity will adjust in either a positive or negative going direction accordingly... causing human brains., their measuring devices, and all else that is involved in any measurements in that particular *inertial* gravity..., including the photons themselves.., to always measure light speed as c... It's just what gravity does, as I've been saying all along...
The ancient Greeks had it right.. Einstein changed it all with imagined time... Argh. It's an example of why I don't rely too much on what his fan's come up with...
So you too might want to take what you read with just a little grain of salt... Use it to start but watch out when they mention time... lol There is something wrong.., and until people learn what I'm saying is the problem.., just be aware that not EVERYTHING you read is correct... Even Einstein knew he didn't have it right. lol
The only way to measure waves is to count them and relate them by ratio or percent of some other count. Be sub-sonic, rf, xtal, h2o or any other...
That other count could be an earth based clock if its use only involved measurements made on earth... It needs to keep the same number of ticks as it is the standard here on earth.
photo_guy:
I think I know what you are saying, but the illustration I was refering to are only to illustrate how an effect such as time dilation or length contraction can be shown to be a property of waves in general.
The time dilation/length contraction can be observed in any wave setting if the clock/lenghts are defined in terms of waves also.
If you are looking at phonons in crystals, you get length contraction if the "lenght" is defined in terms of wave length. You will get time dilation and length contraction of sound in air, if the "clock" is based on waves and the length is also measured in wave length, and so on.
It might be clearer to read the explanations of the author himself :-). He has a short document just on the SR part (there is also a much more detailed chapeter in the book on this):
http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTh...rRelativity.doc
There is a paper on "Exact Description of Rotational Waves in an Elastic Solid" (published in Adv. Apl. Clifford Alebras)
http://www.classicalmatter.org/RotationWaves.pdf
Another paper published in foundations of physics entitled:Torsion Waves in Three Dimensions: Quantum Mechanics with a Twist
http://www.springerlink.com/content/fekcuv...5t/fulltext.pdf
Here is the link to the book that contains the above in more detail and also how he derives the Dirac equation from it etc.
http://www.classicalmatter.org/VerumVersa/...oryOfMatter.pdf
Chantal
Well.., I sort of thought we were on the same page... You're elastic solid and my changing flux.. ??
Secondly there is no time dilation as such... Things vary in speed.., which is distance over a duration.., but time does not change... Everyone seems to think so but they're wrong. With whatever you refer to, it should be in relation to a physical standard... Length contraction only occurs during acceleration... Or iow the creation of a wave, or originating motion of any kind... That includes adding to motion that is already ongoing...
So yes waves anywhere are contraction and expansion of the air, water, cycles, etc... Although water does not compress in any meaningful way, afaik.., there is still the compression of the atoms from the push end forward... And the inertial stretching on the relaxation of the push..., and possibly even more using a reverse 'pull back' action...
Forget the time settings of various clocks... They're only mechanical means to track something in relationship to whatever you tune them for. They're basically meaningless in explaining or understanding how anything actually works...
Time, as it's used as a measuring tool in our society, is absolutely flat... There's been a lot of work done over the years to make it so... So you can use it then to talk about your questions and explanations to another human in our society... But that's all it's good for... You can't shrink or expand it... It IS the benchmark in this gravity field...
As for the links.., I don't download docs... I got rid of 'office' and other doc readers...
One the first PDF, one the first things I noticed was this...
"
The ideal elastic solid has been an important model in the history of physics. It is a
good approximation for many processes in condensed matter. It was also the basis
of early theories of light because of its ability to support transverse waves.
Aether models fell into disuse at the end of the 19th century when experiments
failed to detect variations in light speed relative to the direction of the earth's
motion through space.
"
LOL... The *reason* they did not see variations in light speed is because inertial gravity affects *everything*, according to their relative speeds through the flux of the cosmos at any point of measurement... Gravity will adjust in either a positive or negative going direction accordingly... causing human brains., their measuring devices, and all else that is involved in any measurements in that particular *inertial* gravity..., including the photons themselves.., to always measure light speed as c... It's just what gravity does, as I've been saying all along...
The ancient Greeks had it right.. Einstein changed it all with imagined time... Argh. It's an example of why I don't rely too much on what his fan's come up with...
So you too might want to take what you read with just a little grain of salt... Use it to start but watch out when they mention time... lol There is something wrong.., and until people learn what I'm saying is the problem.., just be aware that not EVERYTHING you read is correct... Even Einstein knew he didn't have it right. lol
The only way to measure waves is to count them and relate them by ratio or percent of some other count. Be sub-sonic, rf, xtal, h2o or any other...
That other count could be an earth based clock if its use only involved measurements made on earth... It needs to keep the same number of ticks as it is the standard here on earth.
I feel stupider aftre raedng thrs thead.
I can't even think of something nice to say.
This doesn't even meet the lowest bar of unscientific witchcraft discussion from a Harry Potter metaphysical plane.
Expelliarmus |\)
I can't even think of something nice to say.
This doesn't even meet the lowest bar of unscientific witchcraft discussion from a Harry Potter metaphysical plane.
Expelliarmus |\)
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 3 2012, 03:34 PM)
I didn't see a question on radioactive decay... Can you repeat it..?
If that's the entire question on the second line.., then no it can't be...
All rates of aging, decay, cycles, speeds, etc. change according to the strength of the gravity they are all in and experiencing together. Or alone.., as with your asteroid... Everything we perceive on earth will always appear to be the same to us.., no matter what planet we go with them...
Iow.., only that guy out in the middle of nowhere looking at all of the worlds and their happenings at once will see any difference between them... The difference being that they will all be running at different speeds... Although they will each think they are at rest...
They will each be at rest.., 'relative' to that guy out there in the middle of nowhere... lol Relativity is in the speed of physical aging and operating rates.., not in time flexing itself all over the place. Everything needs to be thought of in the physical sense... Time is not physical... It is senseless...
I missed your first reply Photoguy because of the Dingdongs posting there usaul insults and garbage. I eventuly found your post after i had already posted again.
What did you Dingdongs think of Rick Mercer?
Rodioactive decay is what I was referring to with the first question.
C14 dating would be useless with moon rocks and Precambrian earth rocks.
I was thinking that it would be a good way to verify your theory about time and gravity or momentum.
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 3 2012, 06:30 AM)
There is a difference:
Let's say the speed of the water wave on the surface, "c", is 2m/s (just some value).
Now let's say the boat moves relative to the water (can be a "still" boat in a moving river!) at 3m/c.
That means the wave signal will never reach the receiver. Never. So it does matter. Forward and backward does not cancel exactly.
Here is an illustration that might help:
http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterR...ty/Velocity.swf
I agree with you that it's all down to movement... but at least in this thread I was hoping to talk about the ideas in the book or parts of it, and about phonons ... maybe we can start another thread and discuss your idea if you like, or maybe you can give me a link to your thread where your idea is discussed? ;-).
Chantal
If your boat was moving in the water, or the water was moving under the boat.., depending on the speed 'difference', you could say that the boat could outrun the wave... But only because the creation end was also moving away in a negative direction... Right away I see a little of where time travel comes from... lol
And of course the speed of sound underwater is nearly a mile a second... About 3,121 mph... So it would have to be a pretty fast boat or river for the boat to get ahead of any oncoming wave front from behind.
But what I see happening even in this extended speed 'difference' is the same thing that happens on a calm 4th of July night, where the smoke from the fireworks accumulates in one big cloud... As compared to there being a breeze and the centers of all those little clouds keep on leaving the area.., taking their smoke with it..
Nothing difficult there... The speed of the wave compression in the water or expansion of the clouds in the air.., in and of themselves, do not change in the least...
If you're looking for people who will help you build on your thoughts, they're certainly able and welcome to add their two cents...
As for me, I don't think I'll start a thread of my own. Perhaps elsewhere when I have more of the minor details ironed out. But I may start a thread on one of those details that are spin-offs from the main...
Cause my theory/idea involves *everything*... There is no time...
Right now I'm working on what gravity is... Where it comes from and why it does what it does... It's coming together in a fairly nice ball of wax, with no loose ends, etc. With everything backed up by accepted theories and fact., minus that stuff about time... lol
When the cranks are calling you out for being too cranky, you know you have a problem.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 05:48 PM)
When the cranks are calling you out for being too cranky, you know you have a problem.
Not a problem... I know a lot of people like yourself who can't see the forest for the trees...
Not a problem... I know a lot of people like yourself who can't see the forest for the trees...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 3 2012, 05:55 PM)
Not a problem... I know a lot of people like yourself who can't see the forest for the trees...
The only person who doesn't know you're an idiot is you.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 3 2012, 01:08 AM)
When you can put down my ideas, which are very logical, thought out and stated.., and have actually been verified for the most part.., you will have some meaning in my life...
Until then you can join the list of bad-mouthers who can't explain why they say what they do... They're obviously only trying for a large number of posts with their many one liners.... To *seem* more important than they are...
Btw.., you're obviously not one who can pour it out of a boot.., or you'd be taking your own advice... So who should pay attention to what you think..?
Truth is.., no one can put my theory down... Go ahead and try...
Bye...
You're ideas are complete bullshit so wasting effort on explaining it to a simpleton isn't going to happen.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Apr 3 2012, 05:09 PM)
I missed your first reply Photoguy because of the Dingdongs posting there usaul insults and garbage. I eventuly found your post after i had already posted again.
What did you Dingdongs think of Rick Mercer?
Rodioactive decay is what I was referring to with the first question.
C14 dating would be useless with moon rocks and Precambrian earth rocks.
I was thinking that it would be a good way to verify your theory about time and gravity or momentum.
Carbon dating dates carbon based matter... But they're using Potassium-Argon dating for rocks and coming up with ages of billions of years. So I guess it works on rocks... I'm just haven't been keeping up. lol But as with *everything* else.., that results are because we have a particular strength to our gravity field... It may have changed over the eons.., but we'll never know it cause we're only looking at the 'accumulated' age readout... Three billion years could actually only be say 2 billion years at our current rate of aging. If the younger earth was smaller with less gravity and faster aging...
What did you Dingdongs think of Rick Mercer?
Rodioactive decay is what I was referring to with the first question.
C14 dating would be useless with moon rocks and Precambrian earth rocks.
I was thinking that it would be a good way to verify your theory about time and gravity or momentum.
Carbon dating dates carbon based matter... But they're using Potassium-Argon dating for rocks and coming up with ages of billions of years. So I guess it works on rocks... I'm just haven't been keeping up. lol But as with *everything* else.., that results are because we have a particular strength to our gravity field... It may have changed over the eons.., but we'll never know it cause we're only looking at the 'accumulated' age readout... Three billion years could actually only be say 2 billion years at our current rate of aging. If the younger earth was smaller with less gravity and faster aging...
QUOTE (brucep+Apr 3 2012, 06:05 PM)
You're ideas are complete bullshit so wasting effort on explaining it to a simpleton isn't going to happen.
How come all those who think they're know it all keep using that cop out excuse to not explain what it is they disagree with...
It's because they cannot disagree with anything I say... Nothing.., nada.., zero.., ought, nil...
So I dare you to write one sentence with a reason against my theory, other than you say so...
But you won't take me on because "I'm not worth arguing" with... lol
Yet you continue arguing with me with your meaningless one liners...
You're a contradiction in terms... Saying you're not going to do something at the same time you're actually doing it... lololol...
Now stop making a fool of yourself and either say where I'm wrong.., or don't say anything to me again...
Of course you won't... Either way. Cause you're a debate troll who want's to debate..., but can't find an argument against the other side... That must be terribly frustrating... lol
How come all those who think they're know it all keep using that cop out excuse to not explain what it is they disagree with...
It's because they cannot disagree with anything I say... Nothing.., nada.., zero.., ought, nil...
So I dare you to write one sentence with a reason against my theory, other than you say so...
But you won't take me on because "I'm not worth arguing" with... lol
Yet you continue arguing with me with your meaningless one liners...
You're a contradiction in terms... Saying you're not going to do something at the same time you're actually doing it... lololol...
Now stop making a fool of yourself and either say where I'm wrong.., or don't say anything to me again...
Of course you won't... Either way. Cause you're a debate troll who want's to debate..., but can't find an argument against the other side... That must be terribly frustrating... lol
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 3 2012, 02:22 PM)
How come all those who think they're know it all keep using that cop out excuse to not explain what it is they disagree with...
Hey simpleton, everyone here has given you reasons, you've just chosen to ignore them. It's called confirmation bias; you ignore evidence that contradicts your opinions.
Hey simpleton, everyone here has given you reasons, you've just chosen to ignore them. It's called confirmation bias; you ignore evidence that contradicts your opinions.
Maybe i did it wrong I'll tweek the wand wave a bit
Lets try Expelliarmus (/|
Lets try Expelliarmus (/|
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 06:25 PM)
Hey simpleton, everyone here has given you reasons, you've just chosen to ignore them. It's called confirmation bias; you ignore evidence that contradicts your opinions.
Point one out... I must have missed it... Or just tell me what they said...
If you can remember...
But it's more likely that you've just come up with another version of smoke.... lol
Why is time NOT able to be eliminated..? You can surely explain that...
Why is it so *necessary*...
Point one out... I must have missed it... Or just tell me what they said...
If you can remember...
But it's more likely that you've just come up with another version of smoke.... lol
Why is time NOT able to be eliminated..? You can surely explain that...
Why is it so *necessary*...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 3 2012, 02:43 PM)
Point one out... I must have missed it... Or just tell me what they said...
Hmm, I believe I said that almost every compound unit of measurement we have has time as a component. If we take your advice and ignore time, we would have no way to measure things like velocity, energy, and electricity. Time is a metric, just like width, height and depth.
Hmm, I believe I said that almost every compound unit of measurement we have has time as a component. If we take your advice and ignore time, we would have no way to measure things like velocity, energy, and electricity. Time is a metric, just like width, height and depth.
Hey Photo Guy
There's nothing wrong with what your saying.
The people that criticize you are cow people also known as the walking dead they don't have one original thought in there head. If the human race depended on people like them we would still all be living in caves.
There's nothing wrong with what your saying.
The people that criticize you are cow people also known as the walking dead they don't have one original thought in there head. If the human race depended on people like them we would still all be living in caves.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Apr 3 2012, 04:44 PM)
Hey Photo Guy
There's nothing wrong with what your saying.
The people that criticize you are cow people also known as the walking dead they don't have one original thought in there head. If the human race depended on people like them we would still all be living in caves.
I find it amazing that people conflate making up their own imaginary science with being productive.
There's nothing wrong with what your saying.
The people that criticize you are cow people also known as the walking dead they don't have one original thought in there head. If the human race depended on people like them we would still all be living in caves.
I find it amazing that people conflate making up their own imaginary science with being productive.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 08:49 PM)
I find it amazing that people conflate making up their own imaginary science with being productive.
Imaginary Science isn't there a word for that. hmmm
I got it it's called Theory.
See I'm not as dumb as you look.
Imaginary Science isn't there a word for that. hmmm
I got it it's called Theory.
See I'm not as dumb as you look.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Apr 3 2012, 04:58 PM)
Imaginary Science isn't there a word for that. hmmm
I got it it's called Theory.
As usual, a crank is unable to understand the concept of a scientific theory. A Theory is not a "guess," it is a working model of how things work. An idea doesn't graduate to Theory until it has been shown to make testable predictions with high accuracy. The Theory of Gravity states that gravitational attraction between two objects is proportional to their masses. You can formulate predictions and experiments with this theory. "Theory" status in science is extremely rigorous and in no way resembles a guess.
What you and others here are doing is finger-painting in comparison.
I got it it's called Theory.
As usual, a crank is unable to understand the concept of a scientific theory. A Theory is not a "guess," it is a working model of how things work. An idea doesn't graduate to Theory until it has been shown to make testable predictions with high accuracy. The Theory of Gravity states that gravitational attraction between two objects is proportional to their masses. You can formulate predictions and experiments with this theory. "Theory" status in science is extremely rigorous and in no way resembles a guess.
What you and others here are doing is finger-painting in comparison.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 09:06 PM)
As usual, a crank is unable to understand the concept of a scientific theory. A Theory is not a "guess," it is a working model of how things work. An idea doesn't graduate to Theory until it has been shown to make testable predictions with high accuracy. The Theory of Gravity states that gravitational attraction between two objects is proportional to their masses. You can formulate predictions and experiments with this theory. "Theory" status in science is extremely rigorous and in no way resembles a guess.
What you and others here are doing is finger-painting in comparison.
That's primary school physics!
Is that the best you can come up with?
"The Law Of Gravity"
Actually a baby learns that the first time they fall of a chair.lol
What you and others here are doing is finger-painting in comparison.
That's primary school physics!
Is that the best you can come up with?
"The Law Of Gravity"
Actually a baby learns that the first time they fall of a chair.lol
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 07:56 PM)
Hmm, I believe I said that almost every compound unit of measurement we have has time as a component. If we take your advice and ignore time, we would have no way to measure things like velocity, energy, and electricity. Time is a metric, just like width, height and depth.
You believe.., eh? Ok that's cool... Some of it... I remember you saying that too.., but apparently you don't remember my response..? Or did you think I should humble myself to that lameness..? I asked for something real to be put against what I'm saying. In any case.., what you came back has nothing to do with what I'm arguing against...
Ya see..? You're not even listening, don't know what I'm saying.., and yet you tell me I'm wrong... Bah... It's pointless arguing with people who have nothing better to do than one liner troll stuff..., but I'll cover it once more... Try to stay with me.., ok..?
Here's what you're saying.., and what I agree with... When you measure something against earth's atomic clocks, flat time relating to the earth's physical rotation around it's axis, we being at rest to ourselves here on earth.., and all that kind of thing..., you can use time as a means to communicate what you've measured to someone else who would come up with the same thing if they did the measuring... So they didn't have to do it...
Time is simply vapor metric... lol The earth's rotation is the true metric... Something we call a 'day'... That's what's physical... You can compare anything to that physical rotation... Cut up in to as many tiny arcs as you want.., say about 8640 of them.., and you have what man's vapor metric equates to now.., in seconds...
But you can still us it here on earth... We can use it here on earth because it relates DIRECTLY to a physical standard... Our planet's rotation around its axis...
Counting the rotations of the earth on it's axis, and around the sun, merely allows us to get to dinner on time and to know about how many full moons will happen before we die... Nothing tangible... It plays no real part in *causing* anything to happen.... Why is that so difficult to understand...?
What I'm arguing about is that humans.., in their locked in.., not needing to think any more.., concentration on the word of Einstein.., have become dedicated to letting it run all over us... And then wallowing in it too...
Once again.., here's the part you apparently didn't.., haven't.., or will never get...
Time is a *measuring* tool... It's supposed to *measure*... But humans by some failing of their normal common sense.., or a desire for the supernatural.., a total loss of logic, reasoning, and thinking ability.., has let it become part of the cosmos... A real living and breathing monster is out there now... Space/Time it is called... lol Time is out there warping all over the place.., slowing down.., speeding up.., folding itself up, full of worm holes, and I'm sure eventually the math will find the worms to go with them... Time in the cosmos is producing nightmares.
But.., of course..., it's only a measuring tool... So obviously it must be necessary for time to be allowed to create all these fantasies out of completely thin air.., so that it has something really interesting to measure... I think that's called job protection... lol
There are physical ways to measure everything... I've already mentioned several truer and more accurate ways to do so in previous posts. Ways other than faking it with 'time'... Coils of copper wire and some iron can measure voltage, current, resistance, and actually produce the electricity that is to be measured too... Not to mention also putting it to work... Coiled wire and iron can generate electricity, measure the various facets of any electrical circuit and then turn the electricity into torque for mechanical power... Most everything physical can be measured by turning it against itself. Scales will tell you how much something weighs... Measuring torque will tell you how much power it has... Simply by bending an iron pointer...
Where have you been all your life.. You don't know this stuff..? Time is meaningless... It syncs society... That's ALLLL it's good for. It allows humans a way to communicate quickly.., but less accurately..
Now.., reeeally think about it.. . What is time good for....? Besides knowing when to get up and things like that..?
It should NOT be in the cosmos..., affecting/infecting the math...
Now again... try to give me a *real*' reason why it can't be ignored... I'm going to have to ignore all that crap about it being necessary for made up reasons...
You believe.., eh? Ok that's cool... Some of it... I remember you saying that too.., but apparently you don't remember my response..? Or did you think I should humble myself to that lameness..? I asked for something real to be put against what I'm saying. In any case.., what you came back has nothing to do with what I'm arguing against...
Ya see..? You're not even listening, don't know what I'm saying.., and yet you tell me I'm wrong... Bah... It's pointless arguing with people who have nothing better to do than one liner troll stuff..., but I'll cover it once more... Try to stay with me.., ok..?
Here's what you're saying.., and what I agree with... When you measure something against earth's atomic clocks, flat time relating to the earth's physical rotation around it's axis, we being at rest to ourselves here on earth.., and all that kind of thing..., you can use time as a means to communicate what you've measured to someone else who would come up with the same thing if they did the measuring... So they didn't have to do it...
Time is simply vapor metric... lol The earth's rotation is the true metric... Something we call a 'day'... That's what's physical... You can compare anything to that physical rotation... Cut up in to as many tiny arcs as you want.., say about 8640 of them.., and you have what man's vapor metric equates to now.., in seconds...
But you can still us it here on earth... We can use it here on earth because it relates DIRECTLY to a physical standard... Our planet's rotation around its axis...
Counting the rotations of the earth on it's axis, and around the sun, merely allows us to get to dinner on time and to know about how many full moons will happen before we die... Nothing tangible... It plays no real part in *causing* anything to happen.... Why is that so difficult to understand...?
What I'm arguing about is that humans.., in their locked in.., not needing to think any more.., concentration on the word of Einstein.., have become dedicated to letting it run all over us... And then wallowing in it too...
Once again.., here's the part you apparently didn't.., haven't.., or will never get...
Time is a *measuring* tool... It's supposed to *measure*... But humans by some failing of their normal common sense.., or a desire for the supernatural.., a total loss of logic, reasoning, and thinking ability.., has let it become part of the cosmos... A real living and breathing monster is out there now... Space/Time it is called... lol Time is out there warping all over the place.., slowing down.., speeding up.., folding itself up, full of worm holes, and I'm sure eventually the math will find the worms to go with them... Time in the cosmos is producing nightmares.
But.., of course..., it's only a measuring tool... So obviously it must be necessary for time to be allowed to create all these fantasies out of completely thin air.., so that it has something really interesting to measure... I think that's called job protection... lol
There are physical ways to measure everything... I've already mentioned several truer and more accurate ways to do so in previous posts. Ways other than faking it with 'time'... Coils of copper wire and some iron can measure voltage, current, resistance, and actually produce the electricity that is to be measured too... Not to mention also putting it to work... Coiled wire and iron can generate electricity, measure the various facets of any electrical circuit and then turn the electricity into torque for mechanical power... Most everything physical can be measured by turning it against itself. Scales will tell you how much something weighs... Measuring torque will tell you how much power it has... Simply by bending an iron pointer...
Where have you been all your life.. You don't know this stuff..? Time is meaningless... It syncs society... That's ALLLL it's good for. It allows humans a way to communicate quickly.., but less accurately..
Now.., reeeally think about it.. . What is time good for....? Besides knowing when to get up and things like that..?
It should NOT be in the cosmos..., affecting/infecting the math...
Now again... try to give me a *real*' reason why it can't be ignored... I'm going to have to ignore all that crap about it being necessary for made up reasons...
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Apr 3 2012, 05:12 PM)
That's primary school physics!
Is that the best you can come up with?
"The Law Of Gravity"
Actually a baby learns that the first time they fall of a chair.lol
It's actually called the "Theory of Gravity," since it's still possible for that theory to be amended.
Is that the best you can come up with?
"The Law Of Gravity"
Actually a baby learns that the first time they fall of a chair.lol
It's actually called the "Theory of Gravity," since it's still possible for that theory to be amended.
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 3 2012, 05:23 PM)
In any case.., what you came back has nothing to do with what I'm arguing against...
I don't think even you know what you're arguing against.
The Earth's rotation is not constant. It changes over time, and is unavailable as a reference point when the Earth is not observable. It's a terrible standard to measure against.
The Earth's rotation is not constant. It changes over time, and is unavailable as a reference point when the Earth is not observable. It's a terrible standard to measure against.
But you can still us it here on earth... We can use it here on earth because it relates DIRECTLY to a physical standard... Our planet's rotation around its axis...
It's still arbitrary, just like the number of toes on your feet.
I don't think you could understand Einstein if you wanted to.
I don't think you could understand Einstein if you wanted to.
Time is a *measuring* tool... It's supposed to *measure*... But humans by some failing of their normal common sense.., or a desire for the supernatural.., a total loss of logic, reasoning, and thinking ability.., has let it become part of the cosmos... A real living and breathing monster is out there now... Space/Time it is called... lol Time is out there warping all over the place.., slowing down.., speeding up.., folding itself up, full of worm holes, and I'm sure eventually the math will find the worms to go with them... Time in the cosmos is producing nightmares.
Ever heard of the term "straw man?"
Your writing style is the most obnoxious and irritating that I have ever had the displeasure to experience.
I don't think even you know what you're arguing against.
QUOTE
Time is simply vapor metric... lol The earth's rotation is the true metric... Something we call a 'day'... That's what's physical... You can compare anything to that physical rotation... Cut up in to as many tiny arcs as you want.., say about 8640 of them.., and you have what man's vapor metric equates to now.., in seconds...
The Earth's rotation is not constant. It changes over time, and is unavailable as a reference point when the Earth is not observable. It's a terrible standard to measure against.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Time is simply vapor metric... lol The earth's rotation is the true metric... Something we call a 'day'... That's what's physical... You can compare anything to that physical rotation... Cut up in to as many tiny arcs as you want.., say about 8640 of them.., and you have what man's vapor metric equates to now.., in seconds... |
The Earth's rotation is not constant. It changes over time, and is unavailable as a reference point when the Earth is not observable. It's a terrible standard to measure against.
But you can still us it here on earth... We can use it here on earth because it relates DIRECTLY to a physical standard... Our planet's rotation around its axis...
It's still arbitrary, just like the number of toes on your feet.
QUOTE
What I'm arguing about is that humans.., in their locked in.., not needing to think any more.., concentration on the word of Einstein.., have become dedicated to letting it run all over us... And then wallowing in it too...
I don't think you could understand Einstein if you wanted to.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What I'm arguing about is that humans.., in their locked in.., not needing to think any more.., concentration on the word of Einstein.., have become dedicated to letting it run all over us... And then wallowing in it too... |
I don't think you could understand Einstein if you wanted to.
Time is a *measuring* tool... It's supposed to *measure*... But humans by some failing of their normal common sense.., or a desire for the supernatural.., a total loss of logic, reasoning, and thinking ability.., has let it become part of the cosmos... A real living and breathing monster is out there now... Space/Time it is called... lol Time is out there warping all over the place.., slowing down.., speeding up.., folding itself up, full of worm holes, and I'm sure eventually the math will find the worms to go with them... Time in the cosmos is producing nightmares.
Ever heard of the term "straw man?"
QUOTE
Where have you been all your life.. You don't know this stuff..? Time is meaningless... It syncs society... That's ALLLL it's good for. It allows humans a way to communicate quickly.., but less accurately..
Your writing style is the most obnoxious and irritating that I have ever had the displeasure to experience.
QUOTE (Whitewolf4869+Apr 3 2012, 08:44 PM)
Hey Photo Guy
There's nothing wrong with what your saying.
The people that criticize you are cow people also known as the walking dead they don't have one original thought in there head. If the human race depended on people like them we would still all be living in caves.
I know.., and the way it's going.., we'll be living in caves again...
Nietzsche was right... lol Humans are self limiting...
There's nothing wrong with what your saying.
The people that criticize you are cow people also known as the walking dead they don't have one original thought in there head. If the human race depended on people like them we would still all be living in caves.
I know.., and the way it's going.., we'll be living in caves again...
Nietzsche was right... lol Humans are self limiting...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 09:24 PM)
It's actually called the "Theory of Gravity," since it's still possible for that theory to be amended.
Tell that to the kid with the goose egg on his head!
I know your head hurts but were not sure if it was gravity that caused it.
You are retarded !
Tell that to the kid with the goose egg on his head!
I know your head hurts but were not sure if it was gravity that caused it.
You are retarded !
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 09:06 PM)
As usual, a crank is unable to understand the concept of a scientific theory. A Theory is not a "guess," it is a working model of how things work. An idea doesn't graduate to Theory until it has been shown to make testable predictions with high accuracy. The Theory of Gravity states that gravitational attraction between two objects is proportional to their masses. You can formulate predictions and experiments with this theory. "Theory" status in science is extremely rigorous and in no way resembles a guess.
What you and others here are doing is finger-painting in comparison.
No, no, no... What I am doing is taking known, accepted principals, facts, theories and simply recomputing them in a more sane and logical manner... All I'm doing is re-arranging what is already out there and basically taken for granted... Because of course *everything* certain people say is automatically taken for granted... So there's lot's to go around...
So I run with it... And so my theory fits the description of what you have described theory to be...
To take your points one by one...:
None of it is guess work... I have no loose ends to guess about.
It's a working model of how things work.
It has been show to make testable predictions with high accuracy.
My theory also states that gravitational attraction between two objects is proportional to their masses...
I have formulated predictions and experiments with this theory...
I have been very rigorous and I guess at nothing... I know the trouble guesses have gotten us into already.
You can take any of those points and ask me for the details of what I said...
What you and others here are doing is finger-painting in comparison.
No, no, no... What I am doing is taking known, accepted principals, facts, theories and simply recomputing them in a more sane and logical manner... All I'm doing is re-arranging what is already out there and basically taken for granted... Because of course *everything* certain people say is automatically taken for granted... So there's lot's to go around...
So I run with it... And so my theory fits the description of what you have described theory to be...
To take your points one by one...:
None of it is guess work... I have no loose ends to guess about.
It's a working model of how things work.
It has been show to make testable predictions with high accuracy.
My theory also states that gravitational attraction between two objects is proportional to their masses...
I have formulated predictions and experiments with this theory...
I have been very rigorous and I guess at nothing... I know the trouble guesses have gotten us into already.
You can take any of those points and ask me for the details of what I said...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 09:31 PM)
I don't think even you know what you're arguing against.
Another cop out quote.
The Earth's rotation is not constant. It changes over time, and is unavailable as a reference point when the Earth is not observable. It's a terrible standard to measure against.
That's why humans built clocks to be in tune with the rotation.., just so they could see where they were at night.., or under clouds... The first clocks were shadows.. Not so dependable I agree...
QUOTE
The Earth's rotation is not constant. It changes over time, and is unavailable as a reference point when the Earth is not observable. It's a terrible standard to measure against.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The Earth's rotation is not constant. It changes over time, and is unavailable as a reference point when the Earth is not observable. It's a terrible standard to measure against. |
That's why humans built clocks to be in tune with the rotation.., just so they could see where they were at night.., or under clouds... The first clocks were shadows.. Not so dependable I agree...
It's still arbitrary, just like the number of toes on your feet.
It's still arbitrary, just like the number of toes on your feet.
It's not arbitrary to us... We're living on it.., and I'm walking on them. And we have the atoms to prove it...
I don't think you could understand Einstein if you wanted to.
He didn't even understand himself... He was terrible at math and never did figure it all out... He misled himself...
t1 = (L+vt1)/c
t2= (L - vt2)/c
Multiply by c
ct1 = L + vt1
ct2= L - vt2
collect up t's
ct1-vt1=L
ct2+vt2=L
extract t's
t1(c-v)=L
t2(c+v)=L
do algebra
t1=L/(c-v)
t2=L/(c+v)
multiply both sides by c
ct1=L/(1-v/c)
ct2=L/(1+v/c)
add ct1 to ct2
ct1 + ct2 = L/(1+(v/c)) + L/(1-(v/c))
common denominator is (1+(v/c)) * (1-(v/c)) = (1-v^2/c^2)
= L(1-v/c)/(1-v^2/c^2) + L(1+v/c)/(1-v^2/c^2)
do algebra
= [L + Lv/c + L - Lv/c]/(1-v^2/c^2)
more algebra
= 2L/(1-v^2/c^2)
I have to stop now. I look forward to seeing what korosten posts.
-C2.
Edit .. there may well be errors .. partly because I haven't checked fully and partly because they may be there even after I have checked to the best of my ability.
QUOTE
I don't think you could understand Einstein if you wanted to.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I don't think you could understand Einstein if you wanted to. |
He didn't even understand himself... He was terrible at math and never did figure it all out... He misled himself...
Ever heard of the term "straw man?"
Ever heard of the term "straw man?"
Of course... I think I'm talking to one... You're covering for Einstein.., correct..?
Your writing style is the most obnoxious and irritating that I have ever had the displeasure to experience.
I know... I work at it... Thank you...
QUOTE
Your writing style is the most obnoxious and irritating that I have ever had the displeasure to experience.
I know... I work at it... Thank you...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 3 2012, 06:01 PM)
He didn't even understand himself... He was terrible at math and never did figure it all out... He misled himself... Of course... I think I'm talking to one... You're covering for Einstein.., correct..?
That's an urban legend. Einstein was very good at math, even as a child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einste...e_and_education
You're regurgitating ideas in a way that you think you understand, BUT I don't think you understand what you're reading, and the output of your mental process makes no sense to anyone but yourself. It's like reading the ravings of a lunatic. Take your time and write your ideas, then go back and revise until there are no unnecessary ellipses or sentence fragments. It's even possible that we're on the same page, but I don't think you are communicating your point clearly.
That's an urban legend. Einstein was very good at math, even as a child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einste...e_and_education
QUOTE
No, no, no... What I am doing is taking known, accepted principals, facts, theories and simply recomputing them in a more sane and logical manner... All I'm doing is re-arranging what is already out there and basically taken for granted... Because of course *everything* certain people say is automatically taken for granted... So there's lot's to go around...
You're regurgitating ideas in a way that you think you understand, BUT I don't think you understand what you're reading, and the output of your mental process makes no sense to anyone but yourself. It's like reading the ravings of a lunatic. Take your time and write your ideas, then go back and revise until there are no unnecessary ellipses or sentence fragments. It's even possible that we're on the same page, but I don't think you are communicating your point clearly.
I can't be bothered to read the actual history so I'm doing a sort of reconstruction of what might have happenned.
Going back to Lorentz and his Aether - Lorentz's Aether was pretty much like your water in a river ( http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterR...imeDilation.swf ). As the Earth twirls and spins at some point it must be going in the same direction as the Aether and at other times in the other direction. Lorentz wasn't stupid so he did his sums and came up with the figure of t =t_0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) same as your river analysis.
Using ideas originally posted by Albert2 and Waitedivid137 I did something very similar here:-
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=38569&st=0
Unlike your river guy Lorentz was aware that it wasn't just clocks based on light that did the 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) thing .. it was every single type of clock he could find .. that is what the equation tells us and it has been confirmed many times over the last hundred years (and more).
So we have the 'across the stream', what about the 'up and down the stream'?
In passing I recall someone asking "Who says the up and down stream clocks go at the same rate as the across the stream clocks?" .. the answer (so far) is "Everyone" otherwise we'd know our speed and direction relative to the Aether and we don't.
We're looking at a light bouncing clock mounted horizontally in a carriage where 'horizontal' points at an observer on the station.
Where L is distance between mirrors in the carriage
dividing the clock period T into t1 and t2
Note the L' or L_prime ( or L_dashed ) .. we will need it later
In carriage frame:
t_carriage=2L/c
|<-----L'------->|
or ct_carriage=2L'
From station:
|-----------t1------------>|
|<----t2--------|
|-----------t1----------->|
|<----t2--------|
Going back to Lorentz and his Aether - Lorentz's Aether was pretty much like your water in a river ( http://www.classicalmatter.org/UnderwaterR...imeDilation.swf ). As the Earth twirls and spins at some point it must be going in the same direction as the Aether and at other times in the other direction. Lorentz wasn't stupid so he did his sums and came up with the figure of t =t_0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) same as your river analysis.
Using ideas originally posted by Albert2 and Waitedivid137 I did something very similar here:-
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=38569&st=0
Unlike your river guy Lorentz was aware that it wasn't just clocks based on light that did the 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) thing .. it was every single type of clock he could find .. that is what the equation tells us and it has been confirmed many times over the last hundred years (and more).
So we have the 'across the stream', what about the 'up and down the stream'?
In passing I recall someone asking "Who says the up and down stream clocks go at the same rate as the across the stream clocks?" .. the answer (so far) is "Everyone" otherwise we'd know our speed and direction relative to the Aether and we don't.
We're looking at a light bouncing clock mounted horizontally in a carriage where 'horizontal' points at an observer on the station.
Where L is distance between mirrors in the carriage
dividing the clock period T into t1 and t2
CODE
Note the L' or L_prime ( or L_dashed ) .. we will need it later
In carriage frame:
t_carriage=2L/c
|<-----L'------->|
or ct_carriage=2L'
From station:
|-----------t1------------>|
|<----t2--------|
|-----------t1----------->|
|<----t2--------|
t1 = (L+vt1)/c
t2= (L - vt2)/c
Multiply by c
ct1 = L + vt1
ct2= L - vt2
collect up t's
ct1-vt1=L
ct2+vt2=L
extract t's
t1(c-v)=L
t2(c+v)=L
do algebra
t1=L/(c-v)
t2=L/(c+v)
multiply both sides by c
ct1=L/(1-v/c)
ct2=L/(1+v/c)
add ct1 to ct2
ct1 + ct2 = L/(1+(v/c)) + L/(1-(v/c))
common denominator is (1+(v/c)) * (1-(v/c)) = (1-v^2/c^2)
= L(1-v/c)/(1-v^2/c^2) + L(1+v/c)/(1-v^2/c^2)
do algebra
= [L + Lv/c + L - Lv/c]/(1-v^2/c^2)
more algebra
= 2L/(1-v^2/c^2)
I have to stop now. I look forward to seeing what korosten posts.
-C2.
Edit .. there may well be errors .. partly because I haven't checked fully and partly because they may be there even after I have checked to the best of my ability.
Going back to the subs... Below is a start. But it is quite a pain to be honest... and I have a job (I really have to get back to work)
absolute time t0 = waiting period before they start measuring
A --> B (only B moving)
=======================
After time t0:
A-> B
- distance AB = t0*v
- A starts measuring (sends sonar to B )
After time t0+t1 (t1 = time sonar from A takes to reach B ):
A ------> B
- distance AB = t1*c (sonar)
- distance AB = t0*v + t1*v
- so t1*c = t0*v + t1*v
-> t1(c-v) = t0*v
(1)-> t1 = t0*v/(c-v)
After time t0+t1+t2 (sonar returns to sub A)
A<------- B
Since A is not moving, t2 = t1
Total propagation time: 2t1 = 2*t0 (v/(c-v)) based on (1)
======================================================
Same thing with A AND B moving.
Let v2-v2 = v
After time t0:
A-> B
- position of A = t0*v1
- position of B = t0*v2
- distance AB = t0*(v2-v1) = t0*v (SAME AS ABOVE)
- A starts measuring (sends sonar to B )
After time t0+t1 (t1 = time sonar from A takes to reach B ):
A ------> B
- distance AB = t1*c (sonar)
- position of A = (t0+t1)*v1
- position of B = (t0+t1)*v2
- distance AB = t0*v2+t1*v2 - t0*v1 - t1*v1 = t0*v2 - t0*v1 +t1*v2 - t1*v1
= t0(v2-v1) + t1(v2 = v1)
- distance AB = t0*v + t1*v (SAME AS ABOVE)
- so t1*c = t0*v + t1*v
-> t1(c-v) = t0*v
(1)-> t1 = t0*v/(c-v)
After time t0+t1+t2 (sonar returns to sub A)
A<---- B
A is now also moving:
- delta A = t2*v1 (shorter than above)
- distance AB = t0*v + t1*v - t2*v1
- distance AB = t2*c (sonar)
- t2*c = t0*v + t1*v - t2*v1
t2(c-v1) = t0*v + t1*v
t2 = (t0+t1)* v/(c-v1)
Total propagation time: t1+t2 = t0 (v/(c-v)) + (t0+t1)* v/(c-v1) based on (1)
= t0 (v/(c-v)) + t0*v/(c-v1)+ t1* v/(c-v1)
============================================================
Looking at case B, sonar B -> A, both moving
After time t0:
A <-B
- position of A = t0*v1
- position of B = t0*v2
- distance AB = t0*(v2-v1) = t0*v (SAME AS ABOVE)
- B starts measuring (sends sonar to A)
After time t3, sonar from B reaches A
A<---- B
- distance A traveled = t3*v1
- distance sonar: c*t3 = t0*v - t3*v1
t3(c+v1) = t0*v,
t3 = t0*v/(c +v1)
....
I think it is doable, but a complete pain (and I probably make a few mistakes along the way... ).
From reading Rober Close book, it seems there is a much quicker and more elegant way, I think we might want to read that instead :-).
By the way, it even says in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.
Chantal
absolute time t0 = waiting period before they start measuring
A --> B (only B moving)
=======================
After time t0:
A-> B
- distance AB = t0*v
- A starts measuring (sends sonar to B )
After time t0+t1 (t1 = time sonar from A takes to reach B ):
A ------> B
- distance AB = t1*c (sonar)
- distance AB = t0*v + t1*v
- so t1*c = t0*v + t1*v
-> t1(c-v) = t0*v
(1)-> t1 = t0*v/(c-v)
After time t0+t1+t2 (sonar returns to sub A)
A<------- B
Since A is not moving, t2 = t1
Total propagation time: 2t1 = 2*t0 (v/(c-v)) based on (1)
======================================================
Same thing with A AND B moving.
Let v2-v2 = v
After time t0:
A-> B
- position of A = t0*v1
- position of B = t0*v2
- distance AB = t0*(v2-v1) = t0*v (SAME AS ABOVE)
- A starts measuring (sends sonar to B )
After time t0+t1 (t1 = time sonar from A takes to reach B ):
A ------> B
- distance AB = t1*c (sonar)
- position of A = (t0+t1)*v1
- position of B = (t0+t1)*v2
- distance AB = t0*v2+t1*v2 - t0*v1 - t1*v1 = t0*v2 - t0*v1 +t1*v2 - t1*v1
= t0(v2-v1) + t1(v2 = v1)
- distance AB = t0*v + t1*v (SAME AS ABOVE)
- so t1*c = t0*v + t1*v
-> t1(c-v) = t0*v
(1)-> t1 = t0*v/(c-v)
After time t0+t1+t2 (sonar returns to sub A)
A<---- B
A is now also moving:
- delta A = t2*v1 (shorter than above)
- distance AB = t0*v + t1*v - t2*v1
- distance AB = t2*c (sonar)
- t2*c = t0*v + t1*v - t2*v1
t2(c-v1) = t0*v + t1*v
t2 = (t0+t1)* v/(c-v1)
Total propagation time: t1+t2 = t0 (v/(c-v)) + (t0+t1)* v/(c-v1) based on (1)
= t0 (v/(c-v)) + t0*v/(c-v1)+ t1* v/(c-v1)
============================================================
Looking at case B, sonar B -> A, both moving
After time t0:
A <-B
- position of A = t0*v1
- position of B = t0*v2
- distance AB = t0*(v2-v1) = t0*v (SAME AS ABOVE)
- B starts measuring (sends sonar to A)
After time t3, sonar from B reaches A
A<---- B
- distance A traveled = t3*v1
- distance sonar: c*t3 = t0*v - t3*v1
t3(c+v1) = t0*v,
t3 = t0*v/(c +v1)
....
I think it is doable, but a complete pain (and I probably make a few mistakes along the way... ).
From reading Rober Close book, it seems there is a much quicker and more elegant way, I think we might want to read that instead :-).
By the way, it even says in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.
Chantal
QUOTE (korosten+)
Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.
Yes. But until you can do the maths for yourself you are the victim of the emotional appeal of one theory over another without understanding either.
-C2.
Yes. But until you can do the maths for yourself you are the victim of the emotional appeal of one theory over another without understanding either.
-C2.
@Investigator,
I think we are trying to discuss Aether theories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories ) without using the word Aether. By chance I am interested in the transforms from one frame to another in (Einstein's) relativity which (we have established) has the same maths as LET so (for me) one is as good as the other. Personally I think the idea of a medium with the properties described is (far) less attractive than the 'spacetime' of Special Relativity (and General Relativity). In the case of transforms from one frame to another via a third the (notional) fixed frame of LET is precisely what I need to get my own maths sorted out.
-C2.
I think we are trying to discuss Aether theories ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories ) without using the word Aether. By chance I am interested in the transforms from one frame to another in (Einstein's) relativity which (we have established) has the same maths as LET so (for me) one is as good as the other. Personally I think the idea of a medium with the properties described is (far) less attractive than the 'spacetime' of Special Relativity (and General Relativity). In the case of transforms from one frame to another via a third the (notional) fixed frame of LET is precisely what I need to get my own maths sorted out.
-C2.
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 4 2012, 12:39 AM)
Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether..._Current_Status
If the only difference is metaphysical then there is no scientific difference. LET simply became SR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether..._Current_Status
QUOTE
By this point, the last vestiges of a substantial ether had been eliminated from Lorentz's "ether" theory, and it became both empirically and deductively equivalent to special relativity. The only difference was the metaphysical postulate of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and played no role in the physical predictions of the theory.
If the only difference is metaphysical then there is no scientific difference. LET simply became SR.
I don't think anybody is really questioning the math on either side. There are lots of papers on this topic from either side and the conclusion is that both interpretations use the exact same math. So if there is no disagreement, I don't reallly see the need to do all the math myself (even if I had no job and no live I don't think I would do it... why?)
The difference is in the interpretation.
In one interpretation is there is no medium, no absolute space, so no physical properties, QM is purely statistical (or take the Copenhagen interpretation etc), and so on, and the GR tensor is a spacetime tensor, and time itself slows down. C is truly constant for all frames, all observers.
The other interpretation is that there is a medium, there is absolute space, and it has physical properties (even if not used in calculations!). Matter is really made of waves (as Schroedinger origianlly thought) and there is a physical basis, so QM is not just statistical. The GR tensor is a 3D space plus density tensor. There no absolute time that changes, but only clocks tick slower. c is constant in the absolute medium, and it *looks* constant to all observers in all reference frames.
Mathematically there is no difference.
I still think it makes sense to look at both interpretations and its implications.
In the first one, there are some paradoxes that seem difficult to resolve (such as the twin paradox). It is not "obvious" (at least to me) why there is SR and how gravity *really* works.
In the second interpretation the twin "paradox" is totally simple to resolve. SR is a natural property of a wave, and gravity is refraction. All is totally intuitive and simple, I think my grandmother could understand :-).
So to me at least, given two theories that both use the same math and both are based on the same experimental evidence, I think it makes sense to consider the simpler more intuitive one.
Unfortunatley it seems hardly anyone has bothered to look at the second one since Einstein - at least until recently. Now there are more and more people writing about it, and Robert Close as far as I know is the one who did the most detailed analysis of it, and so I would like to discuss this book - to get back on topic :-).
I just want to talk about it, what do others think about this? Are there any implications of it? Are there drawbacks?
Chantal
The difference is in the interpretation.
In one interpretation is there is no medium, no absolute space, so no physical properties, QM is purely statistical (or take the Copenhagen interpretation etc), and so on, and the GR tensor is a spacetime tensor, and time itself slows down. C is truly constant for all frames, all observers.
The other interpretation is that there is a medium, there is absolute space, and it has physical properties (even if not used in calculations!). Matter is really made of waves (as Schroedinger origianlly thought) and there is a physical basis, so QM is not just statistical. The GR tensor is a 3D space plus density tensor. There no absolute time that changes, but only clocks tick slower. c is constant in the absolute medium, and it *looks* constant to all observers in all reference frames.
Mathematically there is no difference.
I still think it makes sense to look at both interpretations and its implications.
In the first one, there are some paradoxes that seem difficult to resolve (such as the twin paradox). It is not "obvious" (at least to me) why there is SR and how gravity *really* works.
In the second interpretation the twin "paradox" is totally simple to resolve. SR is a natural property of a wave, and gravity is refraction. All is totally intuitive and simple, I think my grandmother could understand :-).
So to me at least, given two theories that both use the same math and both are based on the same experimental evidence, I think it makes sense to consider the simpler more intuitive one.
Unfortunatley it seems hardly anyone has bothered to look at the second one since Einstein - at least until recently. Now there are more and more people writing about it, and Robert Close as far as I know is the one who did the most detailed analysis of it, and so I would like to discuss this book - to get back on topic :-).
I just want to talk about it, what do others think about this? Are there any implications of it? Are there drawbacks?
Chantal
Confused1, Synthsin,
The word "aether" has so many meanings/interpretations (most of them wrong, like the gaseous ether we are supposed to move through etc), that I prefer not to use this word. Also, in the old days, people did not think that matter were waves, and thought matter was moving through ether, which was clearly disproven.
If there is any medium, it has to be an elastic solid, and to be equivalent to SR etc, matter has to be waves.
So what are some implications/differences?
For instance, in the LET model, there is no possibility of time travel ;-).
(it is space/density and not space time :-)
Also, in the LET model, I there is noting that travels from one object to another when looking the force of gravity. The force "field" is just there (density of space).
Re twin paradox: the twin that moves faster relative to the medium ages less!
So again there is a small difference.
Any other?
Oh, I just remembered one:
Can someone explain to me how the doppler effect of light works if there is no medium ;-)? (Again easy to explain with a medium, just like sound in air)
photo_guy: interesting to you maybe: in the LET model, "time" does not change, only the speed of clocks etc changes
Chantal
The word "aether" has so many meanings/interpretations (most of them wrong, like the gaseous ether we are supposed to move through etc), that I prefer not to use this word. Also, in the old days, people did not think that matter were waves, and thought matter was moving through ether, which was clearly disproven.
If there is any medium, it has to be an elastic solid, and to be equivalent to SR etc, matter has to be waves.
So what are some implications/differences?
For instance, in the LET model, there is no possibility of time travel ;-).
(it is space/density and not space time :-)
Also, in the LET model, I there is noting that travels from one object to another when looking the force of gravity. The force "field" is just there (density of space).
Re twin paradox: the twin that moves faster relative to the medium ages less!
So again there is a small difference.
Any other?
Oh, I just remembered one:
Can someone explain to me how the doppler effect of light works if there is no medium ;-)? (Again easy to explain with a medium, just like sound in air)
photo_guy: interesting to you maybe: in the LET model, "time" does not change, only the speed of clocks etc changes
Chantal
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 3 2012, 10:59 PM)
That's an urban legend. Einstein was very good at math, even as a child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einste...e_and_education
You're regurgitating ideas in a way that you think you understand, BUT I don't think you understand what you're reading, and the output of your mental process makes no sense to anyone but yourself. It's like reading the ravings of a lunatic. Take your time and write your ideas, then go back and revise until there are no unnecessary ellipses or sentence fragments. It's even possible that we're on the same page, but I don't think you are communicating your point clearly.
If you think wikipedia is going to say anything bad about Einstein, you need to stop thinking altogether... It's senseless for you to waste your life any further.
The word is extrapolating... Arranging proven facts and established theories in a slightly different order, to become one that does in fact prove out... I am simply removing one of the things that Einstein inserted., in changing LET to SR.. It was a bad apple... I see 'time' as the lock on the door to the theory of everything... That may be where you think I'm raving but it would then seem to me that you're biased..., not able to consider new ideas on WHY things aren't quite working out now...
If you believe my writings are the ravings of a lunitic, it may just be that you aren't able to keep up..? Your problem may be relativity... Your mind is slower than my mind.
I have done many hundreds of lines of explanation but no one person wants to bother reading them. They are verbose in their detail.., and they are clear to me... Yes. But if they are not clear to others then they should ask a question. I would be happy to clarify anything... But no one has done that to any meaningful extent. They just say I'm wrong... lol
And of course no one can word things so that *everyone* understands the complete and accurate meaning. It is therefore the problem of the individuals who don't understand to ask about it... I had a problem like that studying trig on my own... I had to ask an outside question at times... Don't we all...?
So ask...
The ellipses are meant as pauses for contemplation in most cases... Unfinished on paper, to be finished in the mind... Aposiopesis iow... I could continue in most cases explaining the likes of 'to be done in the mind of the person I'm writing to', or some such. But I'm already trying to be *too* clear... They also help in separating the sentences to make things easier to read space wise...
In any case I've been told I 'write to read'... That my text 'flows'... I took that as a big compliment because he had a national radio program and he read a lot of my stuff to his audience... He said it was a fairly rare talent. So here I may be rushing a bit... But I have to deal with other people's writings too... It's something we all need to deal with...
If you want to know HOW time can be replaced.., I've spelled that out too... In my earlier posts. I'm developing things more as I write here too... So it is becoming much smoother than it was in the beginning... I was on track but it was just a matter of considering all the crap that 'time' has presented..., an item at a time..., to realize that none of it was a problem when time was removed and physical means were used to measure...
Beyond all this, we're not on thread... Asides not related to the subject should be sent using personal messages...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einste...e_and_education
You're regurgitating ideas in a way that you think you understand, BUT I don't think you understand what you're reading, and the output of your mental process makes no sense to anyone but yourself. It's like reading the ravings of a lunatic. Take your time and write your ideas, then go back and revise until there are no unnecessary ellipses or sentence fragments. It's even possible that we're on the same page, but I don't think you are communicating your point clearly.
If you think wikipedia is going to say anything bad about Einstein, you need to stop thinking altogether... It's senseless for you to waste your life any further.
The word is extrapolating... Arranging proven facts and established theories in a slightly different order, to become one that does in fact prove out... I am simply removing one of the things that Einstein inserted., in changing LET to SR.. It was a bad apple... I see 'time' as the lock on the door to the theory of everything... That may be where you think I'm raving but it would then seem to me that you're biased..., not able to consider new ideas on WHY things aren't quite working out now...
If you believe my writings are the ravings of a lunitic, it may just be that you aren't able to keep up..? Your problem may be relativity... Your mind is slower than my mind.
I have done many hundreds of lines of explanation but no one person wants to bother reading them. They are verbose in their detail.., and they are clear to me... Yes. But if they are not clear to others then they should ask a question. I would be happy to clarify anything... But no one has done that to any meaningful extent. They just say I'm wrong... lol
And of course no one can word things so that *everyone* understands the complete and accurate meaning. It is therefore the problem of the individuals who don't understand to ask about it... I had a problem like that studying trig on my own... I had to ask an outside question at times... Don't we all...?
So ask...
The ellipses are meant as pauses for contemplation in most cases... Unfinished on paper, to be finished in the mind... Aposiopesis iow... I could continue in most cases explaining the likes of 'to be done in the mind of the person I'm writing to', or some such. But I'm already trying to be *too* clear... They also help in separating the sentences to make things easier to read space wise...
In any case I've been told I 'write to read'... That my text 'flows'... I took that as a big compliment because he had a national radio program and he read a lot of my stuff to his audience... He said it was a fairly rare talent. So here I may be rushing a bit... But I have to deal with other people's writings too... It's something we all need to deal with...
If you want to know HOW time can be replaced.., I've spelled that out too... In my earlier posts. I'm developing things more as I write here too... So it is becoming much smoother than it was in the beginning... I was on track but it was just a matter of considering all the crap that 'time' has presented..., an item at a time..., to realize that none of it was a problem when time was removed and physical means were used to measure...
Beyond all this, we're not on thread... Asides not related to the subject should be sent using personal messages...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 4 2012, 01:13 PM)
If you think wikipedia is going to say anything bad about Einstein, you need to stop thinking altogether... It's senseless for you to waste your life any further.
So you're saying that your urban legend regarding Einstein's mathematical skills trumps fact?
1. You're not smarter than Einstein
2. You haven't established your assumption that things aren't working out.
1. You're not smarter than Einstein
2. You haven't established your assumption that things aren't working out.
If you believe my writings are the ravings of a lunitic, it may just be that you aren't able to keep up..? Your problem may be relativity... Your mind is slower than my mind.
Just what a lunatic would say...
If by "verbose" you mean "rambling, incoherent and stream-of-consciousness," then yes.
If by "verbose" you mean "rambling, incoherent and stream-of-consciousness," then yes.
And of course no one can word things so that *everyone* understands the complete and accurate meaning. It is therefore the problem of the individuals who don't understand to ask about it...
Most humans can certainly do better than you.
The period '.' is an excellent way to separate thoughts and give the reader pause. Your extreme use of ellipses hints at an underlying laziness and impatience with the act of writing.
The period '.' is an excellent way to separate thoughts and give the reader pause. Your extreme use of ellipses hints at an underlying laziness and impatience with the act of writing.
If you want to know HOW time can be replaced.., I've spelled that out too... In my earlier posts. I'm developing things more as I write here too... So it is becoming much smoother than it was in the beginning... I was on track but it was just a matter of considering all the crap that 'time' has presented..., an item at a time..., to realize that none of it was a problem when time was removed and physical means were used to measure...
Your message thus far has been "time breaks stuff" and "Einstein was an idiot." You are nowhere near actually addressing physics on a realistic or specific level.
We can only discover who moved faster than the other and how much faster (relatively ;-). We would't know the abolute speed of either of the twins.
Chantal
So you're saying that your urban legend regarding Einstein's mathematical skills trumps fact?
QUOTE
The word is extrapolating... Arranging proven facts and established theories in a slightly different order, to become one that does in fact prove out... I am simply removing one of the things that Einstein inserted., in changing LET to SR.. It was a bad apple... I see 'time' as the lock on the door to the theory of everything... That may be where you think I'm raving but it would then seem to me that you're biased..., not able to consider new ideas on WHY things aren't quite working out now...
1. You're not smarter than Einstein
2. You haven't established your assumption that things aren't working out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The word is extrapolating... Arranging proven facts and established theories in a slightly different order, to become one that does in fact prove out... I am simply removing one of the things that Einstein inserted., in changing LET to SR.. It was a bad apple... I see 'time' as the lock on the door to the theory of everything... That may be where you think I'm raving but it would then seem to me that you're biased..., not able to consider new ideas on WHY things aren't quite working out now... |
1. You're not smarter than Einstein
2. You haven't established your assumption that things aren't working out.
If you believe my writings are the ravings of a lunitic, it may just be that you aren't able to keep up..? Your problem may be relativity... Your mind is slower than my mind.
Just what a lunatic would say...
QUOTE
I have done many hundreds of lines of explanation but no one person wants to bother reading them. They are verbose in their detail.., and they are clear to me... Yes. But if they are not clear to others then they should ask a question. I would be happy to clarify anything... But no one has done that to any meaningful extent. They just say I'm wrong... lol
If by "verbose" you mean "rambling, incoherent and stream-of-consciousness," then yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have done many hundreds of lines of explanation but no one person wants to bother reading them. They are verbose in their detail.., and they are clear to me... Yes. But if they are not clear to others then they should ask a question. I would be happy to clarify anything... But no one has done that to any meaningful extent. They just say I'm wrong... lol |
If by "verbose" you mean "rambling, incoherent and stream-of-consciousness," then yes.
And of course no one can word things so that *everyone* understands the complete and accurate meaning. It is therefore the problem of the individuals who don't understand to ask about it...
Most humans can certainly do better than you.
QUOTE
The ellipses are meant as pauses for contemplation in most cases... Unfinished on paper, to be finished in the mind...
The period '.' is an excellent way to separate thoughts and give the reader pause. Your extreme use of ellipses hints at an underlying laziness and impatience with the act of writing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The ellipses are meant as pauses for contemplation in most cases... Unfinished on paper, to be finished in the mind... |
The period '.' is an excellent way to separate thoughts and give the reader pause. Your extreme use of ellipses hints at an underlying laziness and impatience with the act of writing.
If you want to know HOW time can be replaced.., I've spelled that out too... In my earlier posts. I'm developing things more as I write here too... So it is becoming much smoother than it was in the beginning... I was on track but it was just a matter of considering all the crap that 'time' has presented..., an item at a time..., to realize that none of it was a problem when time was removed and physical means were used to measure...
Your message thus far has been "time breaks stuff" and "Einstein was an idiot." You are nowhere near actually addressing physics on a realistic or specific level.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 4 2012, 05:23 PM)
So you're saying that your urban legend regarding Einstein's mathematical skills trumps fact?
1. You're not smarter than Einstein
2. You haven't established your assumption that things aren't working out.
Just what a lunatic would say...
If by "verbose" you mean "rambling, incoherent and stream-of-consciousness," then yes.
Most humans can certainly do better than you.
The period '.' is an excellent way to separate thoughts and give the reader pause. Your extreme use of ellipses hints at an underlying laziness and impatience with the act of writing.
Your message thus far has been "time breaks stuff" and "Einstein was an idiot." You are nowhere near actually addressing physics on a realistic or specific level.
You're right about my message on time... Einstein has been made into more than he was... That's all... I am not one to be wowed by stories I hear... I know they are all exaggerated... Anne Frank's diary's.., Mother Theresa.., whatever...
So maybe you should consider moving on and do something worthwhile with that time of yours you love so much... Leave us idiots babble on here in the new theories section... Since we don't seem to be worth anything, why do you bother hanging around...?
Right now I have better things to do than to defend against rantings brought on by a potato's IQ...
1. You're not smarter than Einstein
2. You haven't established your assumption that things aren't working out.
Just what a lunatic would say...
If by "verbose" you mean "rambling, incoherent and stream-of-consciousness," then yes.
Most humans can certainly do better than you.
The period '.' is an excellent way to separate thoughts and give the reader pause. Your extreme use of ellipses hints at an underlying laziness and impatience with the act of writing.
Your message thus far has been "time breaks stuff" and "Einstein was an idiot." You are nowhere near actually addressing physics on a realistic or specific level.
You're right about my message on time... Einstein has been made into more than he was... That's all... I am not one to be wowed by stories I hear... I know they are all exaggerated... Anne Frank's diary's.., Mother Theresa.., whatever...
So maybe you should consider moving on and do something worthwhile with that time of yours you love so much... Leave us idiots babble on here in the new theories section... Since we don't seem to be worth anything, why do you bother hanging around...?
Right now I have better things to do than to defend against rantings brought on by a potato's IQ...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 4 2012, 01:39 PM)
You're right about my message on time... Einstein has been made into more than he was... That's all... I am not one to be wowed by stories I hear... I know they are all exaggerated... Anne Frank's diary's.., Mother Theresa.., whatever...
Your vague accusations against Einstein are just that: vague.
Put up or shut up.
No.
Your vague accusations against Einstein are just that: vague.
Put up or shut up.
QUOTE
So maybe you should consider moving on and do something worthwhile with that time of yours you love so much... Leave us idiots babble on here in the new theories section...
No.
QUOTE (korosten+)
Re twin paradox: the twin that moves faster relative to the medium ages less!
So again there is a small difference.
By this means we could discover our velocity wrt the Aether - and that isn't going to happen - so there's something wrong there.
-C2.
So again there is a small difference.
By this means we could discover our velocity wrt the Aether - and that isn't going to happen - so there's something wrong there.
-C2.
QUOTE
By this means we could discover our velocity wrt the Aether - and that isn't going to happen - so there's something wrong there.
We can only discover who moved faster than the other and how much faster (relatively ;-). We would't know the abolute speed of either of the twins.
Chantal
Dear Participants of the discussion so far,
You will find it interesting to read: "Holistic Theory of Everything" at the site:
http://sites.google.com/site/theultimaterealitysite
This theory also is based on a postulate of 'all-pervading super-flexible-continuum'
occupying the entire space, and 'particles of matter' as a process of vibrations spontaneously generated in it.
You will find it interesting to read: "Holistic Theory of Everything" at the site:
http://sites.google.com/site/theultimaterealitysite
This theory also is based on a postulate of 'all-pervading super-flexible-continuum'
occupying the entire space, and 'particles of matter' as a process of vibrations spontaneously generated in it.
Hasmukh,
thanks for the link - this sounds very interesting (I read a few of your documents).
Maybe people like you and Robert Close (and Ilja Schmelzer) should really work together (or at least read each others work)
Why don't you start a thread on it and we can discuss it :-) ?
Chantal
thanks for the link - this sounds very interesting (I read a few of your documents).
Maybe people like you and Robert Close (and Ilja Schmelzer) should really work together (or at least read each others work)
Why don't you start a thread on it and we can discuss it :-) ?
Chantal
[QUOTE=korosten,Apr 4 2012, 01:15 PM]Confused1, Synthsin,
The word "aether" has so many meanings/interpretations (most of them wrong, like the gaseous ether we are supposed to move through etc), that I prefer not to use this word. Also, in the old days, people did not think that matter were waves, and thought matter was moving through ether, which was clearly disproven.
If there is any medium, it has to be an elastic solid, and to be equivalent to SR etc, matter has to be waves.
So what are some implications/differences?
For instance, in the LET model, there is no possibility of time travel ;-).
(it is space/density and not space time :-)
Also, in the LET model, I there is noting that travels from one object to another when looking the force of gravity. The force "field" is just there (density of space).
Re twin paradox: the twin that moves faster relative to the medium ages less!
So again there is a small difference.
Any other?
Oh, I just remembered one:
Can someone explain to me how the doppler effect of light works if there is no medium ;-)? (Again easy to explain with a medium, just like sound in air)
photo_guy: interesting to you maybe: in the LET model, "time" does not change, only the speed of clocks etc changes
Chantal[/QUOTE]
LET IS the more correct in all ways... It is the way things really are... It all works with LET and you have none of the questions or loose ends... It perhaps didn't go far enough... There is an aether.., which is the spelling of the ancient Greeks who had it right from the start...
Firstly.., although you say it has been disproven.., matter does move through the aether...
Secondly matter produce waves.., not the reverse... Particles travel through the aether... It is the highway and power source of the cosmos. More of this below...
For now I will say that photons are particles that produce waves by reacting with the aether as it travels through it... Photon particles, with their vibrations, oscillations, frequencies or whatever means.., produce the energy waves that we have evolved to see as light... They radiate out from their photon source as any sound wave radiates from it's percussion source...
Photon particles slip through slits and then continue spraying their light outwards from themselves wherever they're headed or get reflected to. They can keep slipping through continuous slits and each time sending out their light producing frequencies... They bounce off particular surfaces like a silver mirror backing.., and retain their properties entirely, or they can bounce off other surfaces like a colored wall, and start to vibrate in some other range... One that matches the color they just bounced from... The waves these photons produce can be modified in that way and they can then be contained by reflection and wave length, as microwave RF is reflected and contained and sent through hollow wave guides..
In this way light is sent into our retinas so we can *see* them...
From an earlier post of yours...:
[quote]
By this point, the last vestiges of a substantial ether had been eliminated from Lorentz's "ether" theory, and it became both empirically and deductively equivalent to special relativity. The only difference was the metaphysical postulate of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and played no role in the physical predictions of the theory.
[/unquote]
There IS a unique and absolute rest frame... It's not metaphysical... It's that of the local gravity field..., and the reason it becomes what it is, is the flux you're talking about that exists within the cosmos. Your elastic solid I think you call it.
It is not empirically undetectable... If people would stop shutting off their minds and think a bit about what I've been saying they will see that... There is an interconnecting flux that is nearly if not totally instantaneous within the cosmos and we are seeing evidence of that all over the place... But everyone is shrugging it off... Duh..? What is it that can't be believed... Is it simply anything that what I'm saying doesn't include time..? Is everyone just so set in their minds that they *can't* see anything else..?
Just for starters, there are supposed to be these virtual particles jumping out of nowhere..., and they returning to nowhere..? Huh..? You believe that.? They jump out of 'something', you best believe it... Perhaps from a collision as I've said before..? There are simply things going on that we haven't figured how to measure or see yet. Things we don't need to see... It's like back stage stuff to a play that's going on.
We have all kinds of changing physical ages and clock speeds all around us... We see the clocks on the mountains running faster than at sea level... We see them running slower, the faster they move in space..? These two apparent opposites DO relate... I have talked about the point of transition.. Which form of gravity is stronger... Mass or Inertial... Whichever is stronger, slows clocks more... The mechanisms only, no matter what they consist of.., because it is done to every atom and below of that physical clock... Including the photon within the bouncing mirrors...
So everyone sees 'c' the same in each local gravity field...? That is because gravity is adjusting *EVERYTHING*, from the atomic level up.., to work in harmony with everything else within that particular strength gravity field... Why are people refusing to understand this is possible..? To see the absolute logic of it...
Those photon particles traveling through the flux are first modified by the local gravity... They spin, oscillate, vibrate slower in heavier gravity.., and produce the waves at a slower frequency that our minds are capable of seeing, also in that gravity field.., as 'c'... Which is it of course.., to those seeing it... Everything being relative... It's all in the perception of the whole...
There is a flux in the cosmos... Some have said it is gravity itself but I am starting to believe it is something else... Perhaps the 'dark energy' that has been noticed and postulated. Then gravity is produced individually by each and every atom as it cuts through this flux... Similar to a magnet creating electricity as it rotates near a coil of wire...
Every atom moving in any manner is creating its own gravity and working harder the more flux it cuts through... It produces it's own tiny bit of gravity and then tends to attract other atoms., to at least as close as their 'operating' space and field will allow... They build larger and larger mass... The more atoms there are in a mass, that takes on the sum of all the gravity being produced by each and every atom... The mass becomes a planet or a sun.., they are then nothing more than another version of a 'space ship' traveling through space. Nothing is changing time... Time is not the issue... Gravity is created by atoms cutting the lines of flux in the cosmos... This action slows them. The same as counter emf in our electric motors, etc. The atoms and everything they comprise in that local gravity field are producing the gravity which that mass has. And that gravity is also what slows them accordingly... It all comes together...
When an individual cuts away from earth, and leaves the earth's mass gravity behind, in that well known space ship with less aging.., the mass gravity which is being produced by all earth's atoms traveling through space at earth's particular speed.., will stop combining with the the individual's mass gravity.... Gradually lessening as he departs.... Until the point where the individual's speed increases enough to cut through the lines of flux at an even greater speed than earth was going... The individual will take on more and more *inertial* gravity of its own... The faster the individual goes, the more flux is cut, the more the atoms work to produce gravity, the slower they work... The more and more gravity is produced until it is said.., that *time* stops for that individual... Except that it isn't *time* that stops... It is that his atoms just grind to a halt... It is that they are going so fast the atoms cannot keep doing their own things requiring motion, because they are spending all their ability keeping up with the overall speed of getting through through space... At maximum speed there will be maximum gravity and minimal aging or atomic motion.., or as some erroneously now say.., time stops...
But it doesn't for that individual... He still is alive and alert, thinking why can't I get this ship to move any faster. It's all relative you know..?
[QUOTE=Confused1,Apr 4 2012, 09:08 PM][QUOTE=korosten]Re twin paradox: the twin that moves faster relative to the medium ages less!
So again there is a small difference.[/QUOTE]
By this means we could discover our velocity wrt the Aether - and that isn't going to happen - so there's something wrong there.
-C2.[/QUOTE]
We can determine our speed using the Aether... The early ones just didn't know what it was or how to do it... More precisely, why they couldn't.. Yes there is something wrong here... It is the use of time in the calculations, instead of the actual physical forces that cause it all to happen...
The gravity that mass produces tends to keep closer masses together.., in a clump of its own or as with the moon circling the earth.., the earth circling the sun.., and then of course it keeps going on until we have a galaxy... Each part of it holding on to the rest of it... Their size, speeds and proximity to appropriately larger mass sizes cause the orbiting of the smaller around the larger.., and moving up to the sun, it'size, speed and proximity to a once working black hole, the hole keeps it and its planets in orbit around itself too... Everything working under the forces of gravity produced by the lowly atom.., or below.., cutting through the flux of the cosmos... The flexible solid we cannot see or measure... Although it is starting to be known of... All the masses working with the resultant centrifugal and centripetal forces come to be in combinations that work.. The ones that don't go straight until they crash into something else... And contribute their gravity producing atoms to that mass...
And filling the cosmos is the flux causing it all to happen... That which causes and carries everything that happens in our visible world...
[quote]We can only discover who moved faster than the other and how much faster (relatively ;-). We would't know the abolute speed of either of the twins. [/quote]
Yes we would, in earth's terms..., where time should stay... We on earth are in fact part of the overall scheme of things... They would relate to our speed... by various different amounts... Ergo we know what they both were...
I think we are all on the same path here... We just need to realize there is more to the cosmos than what Einstein decided we were to believe.. Think on your own... Think about what we're all taking about... A unifying force in the cosmos... One that is causing everything else to happen.., at whatever speed it wants to...
LET is much more correct than SR... SR uses an imaginary concept to try and justify things... Math is the enemy there... Neither time nor math are physical... The cosmos is...
Ciao...
The word "aether" has so many meanings/interpretations (most of them wrong, like the gaseous ether we are supposed to move through etc), that I prefer not to use this word. Also, in the old days, people did not think that matter were waves, and thought matter was moving through ether, which was clearly disproven.
If there is any medium, it has to be an elastic solid, and to be equivalent to SR etc, matter has to be waves.
So what are some implications/differences?
For instance, in the LET model, there is no possibility of time travel ;-).
(it is space/density and not space time :-)
Also, in the LET model, I there is noting that travels from one object to another when looking the force of gravity. The force "field" is just there (density of space).
Re twin paradox: the twin that moves faster relative to the medium ages less!
So again there is a small difference.
Any other?
Oh, I just remembered one:
Can someone explain to me how the doppler effect of light works if there is no medium ;-)? (Again easy to explain with a medium, just like sound in air)
photo_guy: interesting to you maybe: in the LET model, "time" does not change, only the speed of clocks etc changes
Chantal[/QUOTE]
LET IS the more correct in all ways... It is the way things really are... It all works with LET and you have none of the questions or loose ends... It perhaps didn't go far enough... There is an aether.., which is the spelling of the ancient Greeks who had it right from the start...
Firstly.., although you say it has been disproven.., matter does move through the aether...
Secondly matter produce waves.., not the reverse... Particles travel through the aether... It is the highway and power source of the cosmos. More of this below...
For now I will say that photons are particles that produce waves by reacting with the aether as it travels through it... Photon particles, with their vibrations, oscillations, frequencies or whatever means.., produce the energy waves that we have evolved to see as light... They radiate out from their photon source as any sound wave radiates from it's percussion source...
Photon particles slip through slits and then continue spraying their light outwards from themselves wherever they're headed or get reflected to. They can keep slipping through continuous slits and each time sending out their light producing frequencies... They bounce off particular surfaces like a silver mirror backing.., and retain their properties entirely, or they can bounce off other surfaces like a colored wall, and start to vibrate in some other range... One that matches the color they just bounced from... The waves these photons produce can be modified in that way and they can then be contained by reflection and wave length, as microwave RF is reflected and contained and sent through hollow wave guides..
In this way light is sent into our retinas so we can *see* them...
From an earlier post of yours...:
[quote]
By this point, the last vestiges of a substantial ether had been eliminated from Lorentz's "ether" theory, and it became both empirically and deductively equivalent to special relativity. The only difference was the metaphysical postulate of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and played no role in the physical predictions of the theory.
[/unquote]
There IS a unique and absolute rest frame... It's not metaphysical... It's that of the local gravity field..., and the reason it becomes what it is, is the flux you're talking about that exists within the cosmos. Your elastic solid I think you call it.
It is not empirically undetectable... If people would stop shutting off their minds and think a bit about what I've been saying they will see that... There is an interconnecting flux that is nearly if not totally instantaneous within the cosmos and we are seeing evidence of that all over the place... But everyone is shrugging it off... Duh..? What is it that can't be believed... Is it simply anything that what I'm saying doesn't include time..? Is everyone just so set in their minds that they *can't* see anything else..?
Just for starters, there are supposed to be these virtual particles jumping out of nowhere..., and they returning to nowhere..? Huh..? You believe that.? They jump out of 'something', you best believe it... Perhaps from a collision as I've said before..? There are simply things going on that we haven't figured how to measure or see yet. Things we don't need to see... It's like back stage stuff to a play that's going on.
We have all kinds of changing physical ages and clock speeds all around us... We see the clocks on the mountains running faster than at sea level... We see them running slower, the faster they move in space..? These two apparent opposites DO relate... I have talked about the point of transition.. Which form of gravity is stronger... Mass or Inertial... Whichever is stronger, slows clocks more... The mechanisms only, no matter what they consist of.., because it is done to every atom and below of that physical clock... Including the photon within the bouncing mirrors...
So everyone sees 'c' the same in each local gravity field...? That is because gravity is adjusting *EVERYTHING*, from the atomic level up.., to work in harmony with everything else within that particular strength gravity field... Why are people refusing to understand this is possible..? To see the absolute logic of it...
Those photon particles traveling through the flux are first modified by the local gravity... They spin, oscillate, vibrate slower in heavier gravity.., and produce the waves at a slower frequency that our minds are capable of seeing, also in that gravity field.., as 'c'... Which is it of course.., to those seeing it... Everything being relative... It's all in the perception of the whole...
There is a flux in the cosmos... Some have said it is gravity itself but I am starting to believe it is something else... Perhaps the 'dark energy' that has been noticed and postulated. Then gravity is produced individually by each and every atom as it cuts through this flux... Similar to a magnet creating electricity as it rotates near a coil of wire...
Every atom moving in any manner is creating its own gravity and working harder the more flux it cuts through... It produces it's own tiny bit of gravity and then tends to attract other atoms., to at least as close as their 'operating' space and field will allow... They build larger and larger mass... The more atoms there are in a mass, that takes on the sum of all the gravity being produced by each and every atom... The mass becomes a planet or a sun.., they are then nothing more than another version of a 'space ship' traveling through space. Nothing is changing time... Time is not the issue... Gravity is created by atoms cutting the lines of flux in the cosmos... This action slows them. The same as counter emf in our electric motors, etc. The atoms and everything they comprise in that local gravity field are producing the gravity which that mass has. And that gravity is also what slows them accordingly... It all comes together...
When an individual cuts away from earth, and leaves the earth's mass gravity behind, in that well known space ship with less aging.., the mass gravity which is being produced by all earth's atoms traveling through space at earth's particular speed.., will stop combining with the the individual's mass gravity.... Gradually lessening as he departs.... Until the point where the individual's speed increases enough to cut through the lines of flux at an even greater speed than earth was going... The individual will take on more and more *inertial* gravity of its own... The faster the individual goes, the more flux is cut, the more the atoms work to produce gravity, the slower they work... The more and more gravity is produced until it is said.., that *time* stops for that individual... Except that it isn't *time* that stops... It is that his atoms just grind to a halt... It is that they are going so fast the atoms cannot keep doing their own things requiring motion, because they are spending all their ability keeping up with the overall speed of getting through through space... At maximum speed there will be maximum gravity and minimal aging or atomic motion.., or as some erroneously now say.., time stops...
But it doesn't for that individual... He still is alive and alert, thinking why can't I get this ship to move any faster. It's all relative you know..?
[QUOTE=Confused1,Apr 4 2012, 09:08 PM][QUOTE=korosten]Re twin paradox: the twin that moves faster relative to the medium ages less!
So again there is a small difference.[/QUOTE]
By this means we could discover our velocity wrt the Aether - and that isn't going to happen - so there's something wrong there.
-C2.[/QUOTE]
We can determine our speed using the Aether... The early ones just didn't know what it was or how to do it... More precisely, why they couldn't.. Yes there is something wrong here... It is the use of time in the calculations, instead of the actual physical forces that cause it all to happen...
The gravity that mass produces tends to keep closer masses together.., in a clump of its own or as with the moon circling the earth.., the earth circling the sun.., and then of course it keeps going on until we have a galaxy... Each part of it holding on to the rest of it... Their size, speeds and proximity to appropriately larger mass sizes cause the orbiting of the smaller around the larger.., and moving up to the sun, it'size, speed and proximity to a once working black hole, the hole keeps it and its planets in orbit around itself too... Everything working under the forces of gravity produced by the lowly atom.., or below.., cutting through the flux of the cosmos... The flexible solid we cannot see or measure... Although it is starting to be known of... All the masses working with the resultant centrifugal and centripetal forces come to be in combinations that work.. The ones that don't go straight until they crash into something else... And contribute their gravity producing atoms to that mass...
And filling the cosmos is the flux causing it all to happen... That which causes and carries everything that happens in our visible world...
[quote]We can only discover who moved faster than the other and how much faster (relatively ;-). We would't know the abolute speed of either of the twins. [/quote]
Yes we would, in earth's terms..., where time should stay... We on earth are in fact part of the overall scheme of things... They would relate to our speed... by various different amounts... Ergo we know what they both were...
I think we are all on the same path here... We just need to realize there is more to the cosmos than what Einstein decided we were to believe.. Think on your own... Think about what we're all taking about... A unifying force in the cosmos... One that is causing everything else to happen.., at whatever speed it wants to...
LET is much more correct than SR... SR uses an imaginary concept to try and justify things... Math is the enemy there... Neither time nor math are physical... The cosmos is...
Ciao...
I think there is evan deeper meaning to the universe than matter time gravity and light speed.
Think about equalization.
It is every where. It governs populations, levels mountains, Every time there is to much or not enough of any thing in one place equalization steps in and try's to equalize.
Equalization is responsible for the existence of matter and the expansion of the matter in space.
Matter resists equalization by forming clumps and spheres.
Every thing physical is pulled in including light.
Think about equalization.
It is every where. It governs populations, levels mountains, Every time there is to much or not enough of any thing in one place equalization steps in and try's to equalize.
Equalization is responsible for the existence of matter and the expansion of the matter in space.
Matter resists equalization by forming clumps and spheres.
Every thing physical is pulled in including light.
QUOTE (Confused1+Apr 4 2012, 09:08 PM)
QUOTE (korosten+)
Re twin paradox: the twin that moves faster relative to the medium ages less!
So again there is a small difference.
By this means we could discover our velocity wrt the Aether - and that isn't going to happen - so there's something wrong there.
-C2.
The aether is not a bunch of point particles that we can measure our velocity with respect to; the M&M experiment proved that.
However, that doesn't mean there is no aether. The aether has characteristics. First, it behaves like the space-time continuum and is accurately described by general relativity. Second, it behaves like the quantum vacuum and is accurately described by quantum mechanics. Third, the aether will always show us that mathematical physics is incomplete.
Everything that exists does so because the aether exists. Aether (nature) existed long before humans ever thought up physics equations.
I did read the book :-).
Yes he claims there are no different predictions than relativity.
(Which should be a good thing right? I means it does not have any contradictions to expeirments so far :-)
I agree - except in the case of the twin paradox ;-). If there is an absolute frame then it is clear that the twin that moves faster relative to it is aging less.
In the traditional SR, this is not the case, the situation is symmetrical. So this is one example where a test might be possible, although I'm afraid in reality this is complicated because we are always in some gravitiational field (like earth) and so the measurements are always influenced by that. Does anyone have a suggestion on how this test could be done? :-)
And I also think there are other implications of one versus the other - like the time travel (ok, that has more an effect on science fiction stories :-).
But there might be others possible implications - although it could probably also be explained by the spacetime interpretation?
For istance I read one of the papers of Hasmukh
https://sites.google.com/site/theultimatere...of-the-universe
You guys should read this, I found it very interesting - I have never thought of this, yet it sounds very logical and plausible (another thread :-)?
I did read the book :-).
Yes he claims there are no different predictions than relativity.
(Which should be a good thing right? I means it does not have any contradictions to expeirments so far :-)
I agree - except in the case of the twin paradox ;-). If there is an absolute frame then it is clear that the twin that moves faster relative to it is aging less.
In the traditional SR, this is not the case, the situation is symmetrical. So this is one example where a test might be possible, although I'm afraid in reality this is complicated because we are always in some gravitiational field (like earth) and so the measurements are always influenced by that. Does anyone have a suggestion on how this test could be done? :-)
And I also think there are other implications of one versus the other - like the time travel (ok, that has more an effect on science fiction stories :-).
But there might be others possible implications - although it could probably also be explained by the spacetime interpretation?
For istance I read one of the papers of Hasmukh
https://sites.google.com/site/theultimatere...of-the-universe
You guys should read this, I found it very interesting - I have never thought of this, yet it sounds very logical and plausible (another thread :-)?
This paper presents fourteen observational-evidences of a constant value of accelerations, experienced by fundamental-particles as well, as heavenly-bodies, suggesting a need for reconsideration of Hubble-expansion of the universe. The gravitational-acceleration at the “surface” of the electron, the proton, the nucleus-of-atom, the globular-clusters, the spiral-galaxies, the galactic-clusters and the whole universe, is strikingly, of the same value, a0 ,which is the ‘critical-acceleration’ of modified Newtonian dynamics MOND. Not only that, but the cosmologically-red-shifting-photon also experience the same value of deceleration; the accelerated-expansion-of-the-universe is also of the same value; and the Pioneer-10, Pioneer-11, Galileo, and Ulysses space-probes also experience the same value of acceleration. As many as fourteen observations of the same value of acceleration can not be ignored by a scientific mind as a coincidence.
They seem to suggest a new possibility, that: Every piece of matter, and every chunk of energy, produces a curvature of space-time around it. Since the speed of light is finite, the re-adjustment of curvature needs some time; so, when a massive body tries to move in any direction, it has to ‘climb’ its own ‘gravitational-potential-well’; therefore they have to continuously spend a part of their kinetic-energy to maintain their ‘absolute-motion’. The ‘cosmological-red-shift’ of inter-galactic-photons can also be due to such a ‘self-gravitational-deceleration’.
Hasmukh, can you tell us more about this observational evidence
Well, all experiments so far have disproven it. So what makes you think that this is wrong?
Well, all experiments so far have disproven it. So what makes you think that this is wrong?
Secondly matter produce waves.., not the reverse... Particles travel through the aether... It is the highway and power source of the cosmos. More of this below...
Ok, this is where I stopped, because I don't see the logic. I'd be happy to read more on your theory, but I see no logical reason for either of those claims.
You said you agree with LET up to some point. Can you give us just one (one) simple reason, what it fails to explain? Maybe if you can give us one logical reason that sounds plausible (to us :-), people might read more of what you are trying to say...
Chantal
I totally agree. So, what do you think are the implications if this is true... is there any way we might ever find any experimental evidence of one versus the other?
And what do you think of what R. Close says? Do you agree that the universe as an elastic solid is a possible (and reasonable :-) solution?
Chantal
I did read the book :-).
Yes he claims there are no different predictions than relativity.
(Which should be a good thing right? I means it does not have any contradictions to expeirments so far :-)
I agree - except in the case of the twin paradox ;-). If there is an absolute frame then it is clear that the twin that moves faster relative to it is aging less.
In the traditional SR, this is not the case, the situation is symmetrical. So this is one example where a test might be possible, although I'm afraid in reality this is complicated because we are always in some gravitiational field (like earth) and so the measurements are always influenced by that. Does anyone have a suggestion on how this test could be done? :-)
And I also think there are other implications of one versus the other - like the time travel (ok, that has more an effect on science fiction stories :-).
But there might be others possible implications - although it could probably also be explained by the spacetime interpretation?
For istance I read one of the papers of Hasmukh
https://sites.google.com/site/theultimatere...of-the-universe
You guys should read this, I found it very interesting - I have never thought of this, yet it sounds very logical and plausible (another thread :-)?
Hasmukh, can you tell us more about this observational evidence
No. He says some predictions are different than relativity theory. Not all the same as you say. IE: the speed of gravity can be any speed according to the solid elastic ether model he proposes. The paper you linked is more crackpot bullshit.
There are no differences for SR, and no difference in the description of the GR tensor.
Re gravity: Do you remember what page this is on? I will reread it then :-)
In theory, at least in "material" elastic solids, the speed of a longitudinal wave does not necessarily have to be the same as the speed of transverse waves.
So, if gravitational waves are changes in density of the medium (longitudinal waves), then it is possible that the speed is not the same as c. As far as I know the speed of gravitation waves has not been determined yet, or has it?
There are no differences for SR, and no difference in the description of the GR tensor.
Re gravity: Do you remember what page this is on? I will reread it then :-)
In theory, at least in "material" elastic solids, the speed of a longitudinal wave does not necessarily have to be the same as the speed of transverse waves.
So, if gravitational waves are changes in density of the medium (longitudinal waves), then it is possible that the speed is not the same as c. As far as I know the speed of gravitation waves has not been determined yet, or has it?
The paper you linked is more crackpot bullshit.
How did you come to that conclusion so quickly? This may be a topic for another thread, but can't we at least discuss it? What about the evidence he mentions, could it really be all coincidence?
Don't you think it makes sense that it would take time for the "curvature" to change (that's going back to the gravitational waves... I assume you agree that this cannot be immediate and that thre is some speed associated, maybe c).
Chantal
Well, all experiments so far have disproven it. So what makes you think that this is wrong?
So again there is a small difference.
By this means we could discover our velocity wrt the Aether - and that isn't going to happen - so there's something wrong there.
-C2.
The aether is not a bunch of point particles that we can measure our velocity with respect to; the M&M experiment proved that.
However, that doesn't mean there is no aether. The aether has characteristics. First, it behaves like the space-time continuum and is accurately described by general relativity. Second, it behaves like the quantum vacuum and is accurately described by quantum mechanics. Third, the aether will always show us that mathematical physics is incomplete.
Everything that exists does so because the aether exists. Aether (nature) existed long before humans ever thought up physics equations.
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 4 2012, 01:07 PM)
I don't think anybody is really questioning the math on either side. There are lots of papers on this topic from either side and the conclusion is that both interpretations use the exact same math. So if there is no disagreement, I don't reallly see the need to do all the math myself (even if I had no job and no live I don't think I would do it... why?)
The difference is in the interpretation.
In one interpretation is there is no medium, no absolute space, so no physical properties, QM is purely statistical (or take the Copenhagen interpretation etc), and so on, and the GR tensor is a spacetime tensor, and time itself slows down. C is truly constant for all frames, all observers.
The other interpretation is that there is a medium, there is absolute space, and it has physical properties (even if not used in calculations!). Matter is really made of waves (as Schroedinger origianlly thought) and there is a physical basis, so QM is not just statistical. The GR tensor is a 3D space plus density tensor. There no absolute time that changes, but only clocks tick slower. c is constant in the absolute medium, and it *looks* constant to all observers in all reference frames.
Mathematically there is no difference.
I still think it makes sense to look at both interpretations and its implications.
In the first one, there are some paradoxes that seem difficult to resolve (such as the twin paradox). It is not "obvious" (at least to me) why there is SR and how gravity *really* works.
In the second interpretation the twin "paradox" is totally simple to resolve. SR is a natural property of a wave, and gravity is refraction. All is totally intuitive and simple, I think my grandmother could understand :-).
So to me at least, given two theories that both use the same math and both are based on the same experimental evidence, I think it makes sense to consider the simpler more intuitive one.
Unfortunatley it seems hardly anyone has bothered to look at the second one since Einstein - at least until recently. Now there are more and more people writing about it, and Robert Close as far as I know is the one who did the most detailed analysis of it, and so I would like to discuss this book - to get back on topic :-).
I just want to talk about it, what do others think about this? Are there any implications of it? Are there drawbacks?
Chantal
You should read the book. The author admits that the solid elastic ether model does make some different predictions than relativity. He says gravity can propagate at any speed. Gravity Probe B confirmed spacetime curvature.
The difference is in the interpretation.
In one interpretation is there is no medium, no absolute space, so no physical properties, QM is purely statistical (or take the Copenhagen interpretation etc), and so on, and the GR tensor is a spacetime tensor, and time itself slows down. C is truly constant for all frames, all observers.
The other interpretation is that there is a medium, there is absolute space, and it has physical properties (even if not used in calculations!). Matter is really made of waves (as Schroedinger origianlly thought) and there is a physical basis, so QM is not just statistical. The GR tensor is a 3D space plus density tensor. There no absolute time that changes, but only clocks tick slower. c is constant in the absolute medium, and it *looks* constant to all observers in all reference frames.
Mathematically there is no difference.
I still think it makes sense to look at both interpretations and its implications.
In the first one, there are some paradoxes that seem difficult to resolve (such as the twin paradox). It is not "obvious" (at least to me) why there is SR and how gravity *really* works.
In the second interpretation the twin "paradox" is totally simple to resolve. SR is a natural property of a wave, and gravity is refraction. All is totally intuitive and simple, I think my grandmother could understand :-).
So to me at least, given two theories that both use the same math and both are based on the same experimental evidence, I think it makes sense to consider the simpler more intuitive one.
Unfortunatley it seems hardly anyone has bothered to look at the second one since Einstein - at least until recently. Now there are more and more people writing about it, and Robert Close as far as I know is the one who did the most detailed analysis of it, and so I would like to discuss this book - to get back on topic :-).
I just want to talk about it, what do others think about this? Are there any implications of it? Are there drawbacks?
Chantal
You should read the book. The author admits that the solid elastic ether model does make some different predictions than relativity. He says gravity can propagate at any speed. Gravity Probe B confirmed spacetime curvature.
QUOTE
You should read the book. The author admits that the solid elastic ether model does make some different predictions than relativity. He says gravity can propagate at any speed. Gravity Probe B confirmed spacetime curvature.
I did read the book :-).
Yes he claims there are no different predictions than relativity.
(Which should be a good thing right? I means it does not have any contradictions to expeirments so far :-)
I agree - except in the case of the twin paradox ;-). If there is an absolute frame then it is clear that the twin that moves faster relative to it is aging less.
In the traditional SR, this is not the case, the situation is symmetrical. So this is one example where a test might be possible, although I'm afraid in reality this is complicated because we are always in some gravitiational field (like earth) and so the measurements are always influenced by that. Does anyone have a suggestion on how this test could be done? :-)
And I also think there are other implications of one versus the other - like the time travel (ok, that has more an effect on science fiction stories :-).
But there might be others possible implications - although it could probably also be explained by the spacetime interpretation?
For istance I read one of the papers of Hasmukh
https://sites.google.com/site/theultimatere...of-the-universe
You guys should read this, I found it very interesting - I have never thought of this, yet it sounds very logical and plausible (another thread :-)?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You should read the book. The author admits that the solid elastic ether model does make some different predictions than relativity. He says gravity can propagate at any speed. Gravity Probe B confirmed spacetime curvature. |
I did read the book :-).
Yes he claims there are no different predictions than relativity.
(Which should be a good thing right? I means it does not have any contradictions to expeirments so far :-)
I agree - except in the case of the twin paradox ;-). If there is an absolute frame then it is clear that the twin that moves faster relative to it is aging less.
In the traditional SR, this is not the case, the situation is symmetrical. So this is one example where a test might be possible, although I'm afraid in reality this is complicated because we are always in some gravitiational field (like earth) and so the measurements are always influenced by that. Does anyone have a suggestion on how this test could be done? :-)
And I also think there are other implications of one versus the other - like the time travel (ok, that has more an effect on science fiction stories :-).
But there might be others possible implications - although it could probably also be explained by the spacetime interpretation?
For istance I read one of the papers of Hasmukh
https://sites.google.com/site/theultimatere...of-the-universe
You guys should read this, I found it very interesting - I have never thought of this, yet it sounds very logical and plausible (another thread :-)?
This paper presents fourteen observational-evidences of a constant value of accelerations, experienced by fundamental-particles as well, as heavenly-bodies, suggesting a need for reconsideration of Hubble-expansion of the universe. The gravitational-acceleration at the “surface” of the electron, the proton, the nucleus-of-atom, the globular-clusters, the spiral-galaxies, the galactic-clusters and the whole universe, is strikingly, of the same value, a0 ,which is the ‘critical-acceleration’ of modified Newtonian dynamics MOND. Not only that, but the cosmologically-red-shifting-photon also experience the same value of deceleration; the accelerated-expansion-of-the-universe is also of the same value; and the Pioneer-10, Pioneer-11, Galileo, and Ulysses space-probes also experience the same value of acceleration. As many as fourteen observations of the same value of acceleration can not be ignored by a scientific mind as a coincidence.
They seem to suggest a new possibility, that: Every piece of matter, and every chunk of energy, produces a curvature of space-time around it. Since the speed of light is finite, the re-adjustment of curvature needs some time; so, when a massive body tries to move in any direction, it has to ‘climb’ its own ‘gravitational-potential-well’; therefore they have to continuously spend a part of their kinetic-energy to maintain their ‘absolute-motion’. The ‘cosmological-red-shift’ of inter-galactic-photons can also be due to such a ‘self-gravitational-deceleration’.
Hasmukh, can you tell us more about this observational evidence
QUOTE
Firstly.., although you say it has been disproven.., matter does move through the aether...
Well, all experiments so far have disproven it. So what makes you think that this is wrong?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Firstly.., although you say it has been disproven.., matter does move through the aether... |
Well, all experiments so far have disproven it. So what makes you think that this is wrong?
Secondly matter produce waves.., not the reverse... Particles travel through the aether... It is the highway and power source of the cosmos. More of this below...
Ok, this is where I stopped, because I don't see the logic. I'd be happy to read more on your theory, but I see no logical reason for either of those claims.
You said you agree with LET up to some point. Can you give us just one (one) simple reason, what it fails to explain? Maybe if you can give us one logical reason that sounds plausible (to us :-), people might read more of what you are trying to say...
Chantal
QUOTE
The aether is not a bunch of point particles that we can measure our velocity with respect to; the M&M experiment proved that.
However, that doesn't mean there is no aether. The aether has characteristics. First, it behaves like the space-time continuum and is accurately described by general relativity. Second, it behaves like the quantum vacuum and is accurately described by quantum mechanics. Third, the aether will always show us that mathematical physics is incomplete.
However, that doesn't mean there is no aether. The aether has characteristics. First, it behaves like the space-time continuum and is accurately described by general relativity. Second, it behaves like the quantum vacuum and is accurately described by quantum mechanics. Third, the aether will always show us that mathematical physics is incomplete.
I totally agree. So, what do you think are the implications if this is true... is there any way we might ever find any experimental evidence of one versus the other?
And what do you think of what R. Close says? Do you agree that the universe as an elastic solid is a possible (and reasonable :-) solution?
Chantal
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 6 2012, 07:26 AM)
I did read the book :-).
Yes he claims there are no different predictions than relativity.
(Which should be a good thing right? I means it does not have any contradictions to expeirments so far :-)
I agree - except in the case of the twin paradox ;-). If there is an absolute frame then it is clear that the twin that moves faster relative to it is aging less.
In the traditional SR, this is not the case, the situation is symmetrical. So this is one example where a test might be possible, although I'm afraid in reality this is complicated because we are always in some gravitiational field (like earth) and so the measurements are always influenced by that. Does anyone have a suggestion on how this test could be done? :-)
And I also think there are other implications of one versus the other - like the time travel (ok, that has more an effect on science fiction stories :-).
But there might be others possible implications - although it could probably also be explained by the spacetime interpretation?
For istance I read one of the papers of Hasmukh
https://sites.google.com/site/theultimatere...of-the-universe
You guys should read this, I found it very interesting - I have never thought of this, yet it sounds very logical and plausible (another thread :-)?
Hasmukh, can you tell us more about this observational evidence
No. He says some predictions are different than relativity theory. Not all the same as you say. IE: the speed of gravity can be any speed according to the solid elastic ether model he proposes. The paper you linked is more crackpot bullshit.
QUOTE
He says some predictions are different than relativity theory. Not all the same as you say. IE: the speed of gravity can be any speed according to the solid elastic ether model he proposes.
There are no differences for SR, and no difference in the description of the GR tensor.
Re gravity: Do you remember what page this is on? I will reread it then :-)
In theory, at least in "material" elastic solids, the speed of a longitudinal wave does not necessarily have to be the same as the speed of transverse waves.
So, if gravitational waves are changes in density of the medium (longitudinal waves), then it is possible that the speed is not the same as c. As far as I know the speed of gravitation waves has not been determined yet, or has it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He says some predictions are different than relativity theory. Not all the same as you say. IE: the speed of gravity can be any speed according to the solid elastic ether model he proposes. |
There are no differences for SR, and no difference in the description of the GR tensor.
Re gravity: Do you remember what page this is on? I will reread it then :-)
In theory, at least in "material" elastic solids, the speed of a longitudinal wave does not necessarily have to be the same as the speed of transverse waves.
So, if gravitational waves are changes in density of the medium (longitudinal waves), then it is possible that the speed is not the same as c. As far as I know the speed of gravitation waves has not been determined yet, or has it?
The paper you linked is more crackpot bullshit.
How did you come to that conclusion so quickly? This may be a topic for another thread, but can't we at least discuss it? What about the evidence he mentions, could it really be all coincidence?
Don't you think it makes sense that it would take time for the "curvature" to change (that's going back to the gravitational waves... I assume you agree that this cannot be immediate and that thre is some speed associated, maybe c).
Chantal
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 6 2012, 07:52 AM)
Well, all experiments so far have disproven it. So what makes you think that this is wrong?
Experiments have so far dis-proven that matter moves through the aether..?
Not... Because we are moving... And it is there... It just wasn't able to be measured... We seem to be agreeing somewhat that there is/could be this elastic solid.., the aether.., are we not..? They are now seeing what is called dark energy... Is it not possibly thee aether..? It has been measured as at least 75% of the weight of the cosmos if I remember correctly..? The energy which is supposed to be expanding the cosmos.. I also mentioned virtual particles popping out of 'something' (the aether?).., and then going back into it... From and to where else..? Are they perhaps collisions of particles within the aether that come to be seen in a way similar to a cloud chamber.
The experiments are very likely totally misleading. They not considering in the least that *everything* is being affected equally. Including the measuring devices. When gravity slows an atom.., it will slow all atoms in that same field of any particular strength, equally. That includes those in glass, brass, or any other mass. There was no understanding given to the idea that the measuring devices were just as affected by it and the gravity that surrounds us.
Somewhat like using a rubber ruler to measure a linear foot... Just hold one end on the beginning of whatever.., and put the other end of the ruler on the end of whatever.., and voila, whatever you're measuring is a foot... Even if that something was flexing.., if would always be a foot... As why light for instance is always 'c'...
Things seem to be interacting with the aether all the time. For SR to allow visible 'c' to have one speed across all venues, and to then try warping those venues into ways of seeing it as such, using math, is preposterous... When a favored frame of local gravity is affecting how fast everything ages as a whole, that photon is going to be affected just as well. There is nothing special about that photon except that it reacts with the gravity of individual fields to produce a frequency we, in the same fields can see as light...
The production of those light waves is therefore adjusted automatically by the available gravity to be what our similarly adjusted senses and hardware instruments see and measure... Everything is relative... Increase or decrease the gravity and *everything* within that field will continue with the same relationship... Only at a faster or slower rate as seen from elsewhere...
Ok, this is where I stopped, because I don't see the logic. I'd be happy to read more on your theory, but I see no logical reason for either of those claims.
You said you agree with LET up to some point. Can you give us just one (one) simple reason, what it fails to explain? Maybe if you can give us one logical reason that sounds plausible (to us :-), people might read more of what you are trying to say...
Chantal
You stopped where I said..:
You stopped where I said..:
Matter produces waves.., not the reverse... Particles travel through the aether... It is the highway and power source of the cosmos. More of this below..."
Perhaps you shouldn't have stopped..? There was more explanation of that below, as it says...
In any case I do not disagree with LET... I'm saying it should rule... And I'll be happy to give logical reasons for my statements...
As with all waves it is matter that creates them... As far as light goes, it is the photon particle that is producing what to us are 'visible' energy waves...
'How' we see seems to me to be..:
That photons come at us from many point light sources within the 140-160 degrees we can see in front of us... They are coming at us from all degrees of that vision range...
As they approach our eyes.., their peculiar qualities (source related) along with their natural tendency to vibrate, oscillate, or whatever they do, react with the local gravity field to adjust that rate up or down to produce the particular energy waves, at the proper frequency for us in that same gravity field to see as light... These waves spread out from that advancing photon in a forward facing circular arc... I say forward facing only, because I don't believe anyone has seen light 'leaving'... Even if we turn around really fast... lol
Actually I believe the photon produced waves are spreading in all directions but that our eyes can only see the Doppler shifted portion that is moving forward... That which would be called the blue shifted visible light with 'visibility' dropping off towards either side of the bluest center of the arc. As opposed to the red shift of light waves that would happen as the photon particle was departing, which are not visible to us. Of course we do see light that is coming from behind our heads.., but only after it bounces off something and comes back to us in our forward facing direction..., shifting shifts as it were...
So if we are looking at three point sources and focusing on the center point... We see it perfectly, as it is coming straight into our eyes... We are seeing the center and bluest portion of that photon's created circular wave front... The point sources on either side are also getting through to our eyes., except we're seeing those light waves coming at us from side portion of that photon's on coming wave front... Because *those* photons are actually going past our head and not directly into our face... We see them less distinctly than we do the straight on point...
If we move our eyes to one of the outside point sources.., the center point will become less distinct and the opposite point will become even less so... So as we move our head around in normal activity.., these positions and distinctness's react in our eyes, and with the interference patterns the waves are producing we come to see a panorama of light... It coming from the billions of point source photons that are producing visible light waves that come at us from all the various angles of each individual wave front. Adding the second eye lets us see the third dimension in our mind...
The slit experiment shows that a photon particle can get through the slit.., and then it starts producing it's waves again on the other side... They will be seen as they bounce off the near side of another wall with another slit... As the photon passes through the second slit it will 'again' start producing visible light waves that will be seen bouncing off the near side of the third wall, and so on...
Particles, or mass, generate waves. Waves do not produce particles or mass... At least I can't visualize how a weightless wave can produce weight... And I can visualize pretty well...
You ask for one simple reason for what it doesn't explain.. ?? What I said was that I agree with LET up to a point.. Meaning only that it perhaps did not go far enough... That it related everything to gravity being in place already... That, afaik, it does not consider that gravity is being produced on the fly. That the aether is bringing it on... When emf atoms cut through its lines of flux...
And just in case you haven't seen this before.., here is more on the subject by someone much more qualified than I... He of course is called a wacko by SR devotees.., but that only proves those devotees are devout... lol
Easier to read:
* * * http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
Same text in original paper:
* * * http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
I hope you can see I'm with you and not disagreeing.. Can you tell me if and where I do not make sense in any way..?
Everything fits together with no loose ends... Why is it not as likely, if not much more so, than the current SR theory involving 'time' that is said to bend and twist all over the place? Just to fit everything that is happening naturally...
The speed of gravity, from the link I just posted above.., is said to be possibly instantaneous... but it has been measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c... But again.., the unknown aether and not gravity itself may be in the mix with this paper... There is a section on whether gravity is renewable or static... I believe ravity is renewable.., created on the fly.., but that aether is more or less static...
And now I see the 'easy reading' site http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com site is gone... Since I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago... Ha!
At least it's gone to my machine... Can others still pull it up..? I have had other individual sites get blocked here at times. I'll do some checking on that too...
But the original paper is still up.., complete with control characters getting in the way all over the place... But it can still be read...
The Tom Van Flandern paper, you linked, is one of the 'biggest' crackpot papers ever published. May Tom rest in peace. GR predicts the speed of gravity is c. The speed of gravitational radiation is c. This means any gravitational model that predicts the speed of gravity 'can be any speed' is not equivalent to GR. You believe anything, you think, might lend support to the complete nonsense you've been spewing over the Internet.
Ok, for one, I don't see why the waves alone are not enough, why would you need yet another layer below it... seems like adding additional levels that are not needed, so based on Occams Razor, why would you do that unless it is really necessary.
QM so far seems to explain things pretty well... and the QM equations are all wave equations. So... why do you need another layer?
I didn't understand why you bring up the photon and the doppler effect either :-).
To me the only "issue" is that the whole SR/GR/QM stuff has two interpretations using the exact same math. One is based on LET, matter being waves, solid universe etc and the other more abstract interpretation.
But if you favor LET, you would also have to stick with the idea that matter are purely waves.
What would make you think that you need yet another layer (particles that create waves?)
From what I understand you can't really mix the two. You can't have a solid universe with matter moving through it... (but I am happy to be proven wrong).
I read Van Flandern's papers and even his book - I think he has a few good points, but it didn't completely convince me. Unfurtunately he died, so we can't ask him :-(. (I even had email contact with him because I had some questions :-). I liked that he thinks out of the box.
The first link doesn't work for me.
Chantal
The problem with "speed" is that sometimes people talk about gravity waves, which supposedly travel at the speed of light (but I am not sure if this has been confirmed yet?), and sometimes people talk about the force of gravity, which is completely different.
If you use the mainstream interpretation, then the force is due to spacetime curvature, which does not have to "propagate" at any speed say from sun to earth, and there is no 8 minute delay. Only *changes* (say, the sun exploding) would have to propagate, and I would assume this is most likely at the speed of light.
In the LET interpretation, the force of gravity is due to refraction because of the density gradient of the solid space. Again, NOT something that propagates unless there are *changes* to the density.
Van Flandern has been talking to some extent I think about the force of gravity...
I think what is wrong in his theories is that in his model, the force *has* to propagate at all times (push gravity),which would result in a insanely high speed of those "particles", and that doesn't sound plausible to me....
I think given that both LET and the mainstream interpretation have a force that does not require anything to propagate (density vs curvature) is consistent with Newton's laws (and the way Nasa computes orbits... using no delays). So any model that assumes moving particles has to explain that ;-)
Chantal
Ok, for one, I don't see why the waves alone are not enough, why would you need yet another layer below it... seems like adding additional levels that are not needed, so based on Occams Razor, why would you do that unless it is really necessary.
QM so far seems to explain things pretty well... and the QM equations are all wave equations. So... why do you need another layer?
I didn't understand why you bring up the photon and the doppler effect either :-).
To me the only "issue" is that the whole SR/GR/QM stuff has two interpretations using the exact same math. One is based on LET, matter being waves, solid universe etc and the other more abstract interpretation.
But if you favor LET, you would also have to stick with the idea that matter are purely waves.
What would make you think that you need yet another layer (particles that create waves?)
From what I understand you can't really mix the two. You can't have a solid universe with matter moving through it... (but I am happy to be proven wrong).
I read Van Flandern's papers and even his book - I think he has a few good points, but it didn't completely convince me. Unfurtunately he died, so we can't ask him :-(. (I even had email contact with him because I had some questions :-). I liked that he thinks out of the box.
The first link doesn't work for me.
Chantal
It doesn't have the same interpretation because the author says so. I gave it a quick 'look over' to find where he disagrees with GR even though he said it was equivalent. He either doesn't really know GR or he's a liar. I suspect he doesn't understand what he said in the context of relativistic gravitational physics. IE GR.
Thus far we have regarded the gravitational potential, and the elastic aether, as being
static but variable in space. This point of view cannot be valid for observers with arbitrary
relative motion. If the gravitational disturbance propagates through space with a speed different
than that of light, then it could be possible to determine the absolute rest frame of the aether from
the directional changes in the apparent velocity of the gravitational disturbance (gravity waves).
However, if the gravitational disturbance propagates with the same speed as light waves, then it
will conform to the ordinary Lorentz transformations and there would be no way to determine an
absolute reference frame.We will assume that this is the case
He doesn't claim that it is different, only that it could be different, and that he assumes it would be c. Either way, it it something that can probably be verified experimentally at some point.
Did the gravity Probe B measure the speed? (I couldn't find anything)
There is one other difference that might at some point be testable:
He doesn't claim that it is different, only that it could be different, and that he assumes it would be c. Either way, it it something that can probably be verified experimentally at some point.
Did the gravity Probe B measure the speed? (I couldn't find anything)
There is one other difference that might at some point be testable:
Unlike quantum theories in which gravity waves are assigned a spin of 2, the
present model treats gravity as a scalar associated with changes in either density or elasticity of
the solid aether. There is absolutely no physical evidence indicating that gravity should be
quantized.
Ok, for one, I don't see why the waves alone are not enough, why would you need yet another layer below it... seems like adding additional levels that are not needed, so based on Occams Razor, why would you do that unless it is really necessary.
QM so far seems to explain things pretty well... and the QM equations are all wave equations. So... why do you need another layer?
I didn't understand why you bring up the photon and the doppler effect either :-).
To me the only "issue" is that the whole SR/GR/QM stuff has two interpretations using the exact same math. One is based on LET, matter being waves, solid universe etc and the other more abstract interpretation.
But if you favor LET, you would also have to stick with the idea that matter are purely waves.
What would make you think that you need yet another layer (particles that create waves?)
From what I understand you can't really mix the two. You can't have a solid universe with matter moving through it... (but I am happy to be proven wrong).
I read Van Flandern's papers and even his book - I think he has a few good points, but it didn't completely convince me. Unfurtunately he died, so we can't ask him :-(. (I even had email contact with him because I had some questions :-). I liked that he thinks out of the box.
The first link doesn't work for me.
Chantal
I favor LET because it does not use useless time... But that doesn't mean it's perfect... I'm stating a few ways I believe it's not quite right. We need to define what we call physical... Atoms are physical... The ideas that may have come up years ago before all the pieces were around may have seemed to fit.., if they made an assumption or two in the wrong direction, but they do not all jive today and should not be considered as being cut in stone...
The waves alone would be nice if they could come out of nowhere. Explain how waves alone are possible and you'll have something... Until then, photons do exhibit both qualities, and I believe the particle produces the wave... Because that goes along with everything else I know about waves... That it takes something physical to do the job. In this case photons create visible waves just as electrons create RF waves... They mix with the various gravities to produce the wave front appropriate for that gravity strength. Similar to a local oscillator mixing with the incoming RF wave to produce an intermediate frequency frequency for tuning purposes... Then our eyes 'detect' that IF frequency, which is now the same for all 'stations'... This is how they can be seen as both... Photons through the slit do spread their visible waves forward in an arc once they get through it, do they not..? Give me a better explanation on how this can be done. Or any plausible explanation at all.. Starting first with how the waves are produced..
As for the aether, and adding another level. The Greeks we pretty smart, and you too, for saying it exists... I'm simply agreeing... It makes sense and there is evidence it does exist... As in dark energy perhaps..? It may well be the true infinite speed interconnecting highway of the cosmos and not gravity as such... There is the gravity of course.., in the local gravity attraction areas of a galaxy.., as opposed to some other force that is apparently expanding those those local attraction areas apart from each other... There are two separate things going on out there.. I'm not the one who is adding another layer... I'm simply extrapolating from accepted facts to explain, in my view, how what is being seen could be working together as a whole...
And talking about extra layers... lol What about Einstein sticking time into the works. Now there was a real case of going against Occams Razor by putting in an unnecessary middle layer. And it was an extremely confusing one at that...
I'm trying to use what is truly physical, but he just took his imagination and made it the 4th dimention... Yuk..!
So while I say LET is the way to go.., it is not the entire answer. That's why my postulates are not the same and why I post in 'new theories'... If everything previously published was accepted as the truth., there would be no advancement.., and no one would think it worthwhile to create such a forum much post to it... Everyone would be happy little donkeys going after that carrot dangling from the stick in front of it... Because new theories go against previous measurements and theories is not the reason one can say they're wrong... Some of those previous measurements and theories are likely wrong too.
We need to find the theory of everything because Einstein couldn't do it.., and what we have now is not working. The loose ends are being ignored... Not only is SR creating one big dizzy-land, the only reason it has detracted from LET and GR because measurements of light, etc. were were done with equipment and methods that were themselves being kept in sync with the variations they were trying to measure...
I explained why I brought up the photon and the doppler effect... Why are you asking... Do you see a light wave leaving you..? Unless a light wave bounces off an air molecule, or a dust mote.., and returns straight on.., you won't even know a beam of light is going past your head from the rear. Ergo the waves the photon is radiating in a circle around it in its travels are stretched beyond the point our eyes have evolved to see them as light. Everything is running a very fine line out there. And any slight difference can make a huge difference in some aspect of it... The least amount of 'error' by mismatching or compounding across the cosmos would cause it all to stop... And since there is obviously a theory of everything.., everything will work in conjunction with everything else, precisely, to the enth degree... So iow, the approaching or departing doppler shift of light waves makes a difference to our eyes being able to see them or not...
IMHO you know..?
So what is wrong with it besides that it doesn't quite agree with other's previous thoughts..?
Oh btw.., the aether is not 'solid' as in solid.. RF has always said to travel through it.., and we obviously are traveling through it... Particles can in fact travel through it...
He doesn't claim that it is different, only that it could be different, and that he assumes it would be c. Either way, it it something that can probably be verified experimentally at some point.
Did the gravity Probe B measure the speed? (I couldn't find anything)
There is one other difference that might at some point be testable:
.... 'it could be this or that' predictions are crackpot bullshit. Go back and read the two references I made to what Gravity Probe B measured. It didn't measure a solid elastic ether.
Not... Because we are moving... And it is there... It just wasn't able to be measured... We seem to be agreeing somewhat that there is/could be this elastic solid.., the aether.., are we not..? They are now seeing what is called dark energy... Is it not possibly thee aether..? It has been measured as at least 75% of the weight of the cosmos if I remember correctly..? The energy which is supposed to be expanding the cosmos.. I also mentioned virtual particles popping out of 'something' (the aether?).., and then going back into it... From and to where else..? Are they perhaps collisions of particles within the aether that come to be seen in a way similar to a cloud chamber.
The experiments are very likely totally misleading. They not considering in the least that *everything* is being affected equally. Including the measuring devices. When gravity slows an atom.., it will slow all atoms in that same field of any particular strength, equally. That includes those in glass, brass, or any other mass. There was no understanding given to the idea that the measuring devices were just as affected by it and the gravity that surrounds us.
Somewhat like using a rubber ruler to measure a linear foot... Just hold one end on the beginning of whatever.., and put the other end of the ruler on the end of whatever.., and voila, whatever you're measuring is a foot... Even if that something was flexing.., if would always be a foot... As why light for instance is always 'c'...
Things seem to be interacting with the aether all the time. For SR to allow visible 'c' to have one speed across all venues, and to then try warping those venues into ways of seeing it as such, using math, is preposterous... When a favored frame of local gravity is affecting how fast everything ages as a whole, that photon is going to be affected just as well. There is nothing special about that photon except that it reacts with the gravity of individual fields to produce a frequency we, in the same fields can see as light...
The production of those light waves is therefore adjusted automatically by the available gravity to be what our similarly adjusted senses and hardware instruments see and measure... Everything is relative... Increase or decrease the gravity and *everything* within that field will continue with the same relationship... Only at a faster or slower rate as seen from elsewhere...
QUOTE
Ok, this is where I stopped, because I don't see the logic. I'd be happy to read more on your theory, but I see no logical reason for either of those claims.
You said you agree with LET up to some point. Can you give us just one (one) simple reason, what it fails to explain? Maybe if you can give us one logical reason that sounds plausible (to us :-), people might read more of what you are trying to say...
Chantal
You stopped where I said..:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Ok, this is where I stopped, because I don't see the logic. I'd be happy to read more on your theory, but I see no logical reason for either of those claims. You said you agree with LET up to some point. Can you give us just one (one) simple reason, what it fails to explain? Maybe if you can give us one logical reason that sounds plausible (to us :-), people might read more of what you are trying to say... Chantal |
You stopped where I said..:
Matter produces waves.., not the reverse... Particles travel through the aether... It is the highway and power source of the cosmos. More of this below..."
Perhaps you shouldn't have stopped..? There was more explanation of that below, as it says...
In any case I do not disagree with LET... I'm saying it should rule... And I'll be happy to give logical reasons for my statements...
As with all waves it is matter that creates them... As far as light goes, it is the photon particle that is producing what to us are 'visible' energy waves...
'How' we see seems to me to be..:
That photons come at us from many point light sources within the 140-160 degrees we can see in front of us... They are coming at us from all degrees of that vision range...
As they approach our eyes.., their peculiar qualities (source related) along with their natural tendency to vibrate, oscillate, or whatever they do, react with the local gravity field to adjust that rate up or down to produce the particular energy waves, at the proper frequency for us in that same gravity field to see as light... These waves spread out from that advancing photon in a forward facing circular arc... I say forward facing only, because I don't believe anyone has seen light 'leaving'... Even if we turn around really fast... lol
Actually I believe the photon produced waves are spreading in all directions but that our eyes can only see the Doppler shifted portion that is moving forward... That which would be called the blue shifted visible light with 'visibility' dropping off towards either side of the bluest center of the arc. As opposed to the red shift of light waves that would happen as the photon particle was departing, which are not visible to us. Of course we do see light that is coming from behind our heads.., but only after it bounces off something and comes back to us in our forward facing direction..., shifting shifts as it were...
So if we are looking at three point sources and focusing on the center point... We see it perfectly, as it is coming straight into our eyes... We are seeing the center and bluest portion of that photon's created circular wave front... The point sources on either side are also getting through to our eyes., except we're seeing those light waves coming at us from side portion of that photon's on coming wave front... Because *those* photons are actually going past our head and not directly into our face... We see them less distinctly than we do the straight on point...
If we move our eyes to one of the outside point sources.., the center point will become less distinct and the opposite point will become even less so... So as we move our head around in normal activity.., these positions and distinctness's react in our eyes, and with the interference patterns the waves are producing we come to see a panorama of light... It coming from the billions of point source photons that are producing visible light waves that come at us from all the various angles of each individual wave front. Adding the second eye lets us see the third dimension in our mind...
The slit experiment shows that a photon particle can get through the slit.., and then it starts producing it's waves again on the other side... They will be seen as they bounce off the near side of another wall with another slit... As the photon passes through the second slit it will 'again' start producing visible light waves that will be seen bouncing off the near side of the third wall, and so on...
Particles, or mass, generate waves. Waves do not produce particles or mass... At least I can't visualize how a weightless wave can produce weight... And I can visualize pretty well...
You ask for one simple reason for what it doesn't explain.. ?? What I said was that I agree with LET up to a point.. Meaning only that it perhaps did not go far enough... That it related everything to gravity being in place already... That, afaik, it does not consider that gravity is being produced on the fly. That the aether is bringing it on... When emf atoms cut through its lines of flux...
And just in case you haven't seen this before.., here is more on the subject by someone much more qualified than I... He of course is called a wacko by SR devotees.., but that only proves those devotees are devout... lol
Easier to read:
* * * http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
Same text in original paper:
* * * http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
I hope you can see I'm with you and not disagreeing.. Can you tell me if and where I do not make sense in any way..?
Everything fits together with no loose ends... Why is it not as likely, if not much more so, than the current SR theory involving 'time' that is said to bend and twist all over the place? Just to fit everything that is happening naturally...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 6 2012, 11:18 AM)
Everything fits together with no loose ends...
Why do I find this so comical?
Why do I find this so comical?
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 6 2012, 11:36 AM)
There are no differences for SR, and no difference in the description of the GR tensor.
Re gravity: Do you remember what page this is on? I will reread it then :-)
In theory, at least in "material" elastic solids, the speed of a longitudinal wave does not necessarily have to be the same as the speed of transverse waves.
So, if gravitational waves are changes in density of the medium (longitudinal waves), then it is possible that the speed is not the same as c. As far as I know the speed of gravitation waves has not been determined yet, or has it?
How did you come to that conclusion so quickly? This may be a topic for another thread, but can't we at least discuss it? What about the evidence he mentions, could it really be all coincidence?
Don't you think it makes sense that it would take time for the "curvature" to change (that's going back to the gravitational waves... I assume you agree that this cannot be immediate and that thre is some speed associated, maybe c).
Chantal
The speed of gravity, from the link I just posted above.., is said to be possibly instantaneous... but it has been measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c... But again.., the unknown aether and not gravity itself may be in the mix with this paper... There is a section on whether gravity is renewable or static... I believe ravity is renewable.., created on the fly.., but that aether is more or less static...
And now I see the 'easy reading' site http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com site is gone... Since I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago... Ha!
At least it's gone to my machine... Can others still pull it up..? I have had other individual sites get blocked here at times. I'll do some checking on that too...
But the original paper is still up.., complete with control characters getting in the way all over the place... But it can still be read...
Re gravity: Do you remember what page this is on? I will reread it then :-)
In theory, at least in "material" elastic solids, the speed of a longitudinal wave does not necessarily have to be the same as the speed of transverse waves.
So, if gravitational waves are changes in density of the medium (longitudinal waves), then it is possible that the speed is not the same as c. As far as I know the speed of gravitation waves has not been determined yet, or has it?
How did you come to that conclusion so quickly? This may be a topic for another thread, but can't we at least discuss it? What about the evidence he mentions, could it really be all coincidence?
Don't you think it makes sense that it would take time for the "curvature" to change (that's going back to the gravitational waves... I assume you agree that this cannot be immediate and that thre is some speed associated, maybe c).
Chantal
The speed of gravity, from the link I just posted above.., is said to be possibly instantaneous... but it has been measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c... But again.., the unknown aether and not gravity itself may be in the mix with this paper... There is a section on whether gravity is renewable or static... I believe ravity is renewable.., created on the fly.., but that aether is more or less static...
And now I see the 'easy reading' site http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com site is gone... Since I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago... Ha!
At least it's gone to my machine... Can others still pull it up..? I have had other individual sites get blocked here at times. I'll do some checking on that too...
But the original paper is still up.., complete with control characters getting in the way all over the place... But it can still be read...
QUOTE (photo_guy+Apr 6 2012, 03:52 PM)
The speed of gravity, from the link I just posted above.., is said to be possibly instantaneous... but it has been measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c... But again.., the unknown aether and not gravity itself may be in the mix with this paper... There is a section on whether gravity is renewable or static... I believe ravity is renewable.., created on the fly.., but that aether is more or less static...
And now I see the 'easy reading' site http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com site is gone... Since I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago... Ha!
At least it's gone to my machine... Can others still pull it up..? I have had other individual sites get blocked here at times. I'll do some checking on that too...
But the original paper is still up.., complete with control characters getting in the way all over the place... But it can still be read...
The Tom Van Flandern paper, you linked, is one of the 'biggest' crackpot papers ever published. May Tom rest in peace. GR predicts the speed of gravity is c. The speed of gravitational radiation is c. This means any gravitational model that predicts the speed of gravity 'can be any speed' is not equivalent to GR. You believe anything, you think, might lend support to the complete nonsense you've been spewing over the Internet.
QUOTE
I hope you can see I'm with you and not disagreeing.. Can you tell me if and where I do not make sense in any way..?
Ok, for one, I don't see why the waves alone are not enough, why would you need yet another layer below it... seems like adding additional levels that are not needed, so based on Occams Razor, why would you do that unless it is really necessary.
QM so far seems to explain things pretty well... and the QM equations are all wave equations. So... why do you need another layer?
I didn't understand why you bring up the photon and the doppler effect either :-).
To me the only "issue" is that the whole SR/GR/QM stuff has two interpretations using the exact same math. One is based on LET, matter being waves, solid universe etc and the other more abstract interpretation.
But if you favor LET, you would also have to stick with the idea that matter are purely waves.
What would make you think that you need yet another layer (particles that create waves?)
From what I understand you can't really mix the two. You can't have a solid universe with matter moving through it... (but I am happy to be proven wrong).
I read Van Flandern's papers and even his book - I think he has a few good points, but it didn't completely convince me. Unfurtunately he died, so we can't ask him :-(. (I even had email contact with him because I had some questions :-). I liked that he thinks out of the box.
The first link doesn't work for me.
Chantal
QUOTE
The speed of gravity, from the link I just posted above.., is said to be possibly instantaneous... but it has been measured to be at least 2 x 10^10 c..
The problem with "speed" is that sometimes people talk about gravity waves, which supposedly travel at the speed of light (but I am not sure if this has been confirmed yet?), and sometimes people talk about the force of gravity, which is completely different.
If you use the mainstream interpretation, then the force is due to spacetime curvature, which does not have to "propagate" at any speed say from sun to earth, and there is no 8 minute delay. Only *changes* (say, the sun exploding) would have to propagate, and I would assume this is most likely at the speed of light.
In the LET interpretation, the force of gravity is due to refraction because of the density gradient of the solid space. Again, NOT something that propagates unless there are *changes* to the density.
Van Flandern has been talking to some extent I think about the force of gravity...
I think what is wrong in his theories is that in his model, the force *has* to propagate at all times (push gravity),which would result in a insanely high speed of those "particles", and that doesn't sound plausible to me....
I think given that both LET and the mainstream interpretation have a force that does not require anything to propagate (density vs curvature) is consistent with Newton's laws (and the way Nasa computes orbits... using no delays). So any model that assumes moving particles has to explain that ;-)
Chantal
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 6 2012, 06:33 PM)
Ok, for one, I don't see why the waves alone are not enough, why would you need yet another layer below it... seems like adding additional levels that are not needed, so based on Occams Razor, why would you do that unless it is really necessary.
QM so far seems to explain things pretty well... and the QM equations are all wave equations. So... why do you need another layer?
I didn't understand why you bring up the photon and the doppler effect either :-).
To me the only "issue" is that the whole SR/GR/QM stuff has two interpretations using the exact same math. One is based on LET, matter being waves, solid universe etc and the other more abstract interpretation.
But if you favor LET, you would also have to stick with the idea that matter are purely waves.
What would make you think that you need yet another layer (particles that create waves?)
From what I understand you can't really mix the two. You can't have a solid universe with matter moving through it... (but I am happy to be proven wrong).
I read Van Flandern's papers and even his book - I think he has a few good points, but it didn't completely convince me. Unfurtunately he died, so we can't ask him :-(. (I even had email contact with him because I had some questions :-). I liked that he thinks out of the box.
The first link doesn't work for me.
Chantal
It doesn't have the same interpretation because the author says so. I gave it a quick 'look over' to find where he disagrees with GR even though he said it was equivalent. He either doesn't really know GR or he's a liar. I suspect he doesn't understand what he said in the context of relativistic gravitational physics. IE GR.
So what part exactly are you disagreeing with and why? (or what page?)
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 6 2012, 07:35 PM)
So what part exactly are you disagreeing with and why? (or what page?)
The solid elastic ether interpretation doesn't predict the speed of gravity is c [based on what the author said] so it disagrees with GR. Spacetime curvature was measured during the Gravity Probe B experiment. It took years of technical advances to actually create an experiment which could make the measurements. I'm not against different models but 'any such' has to recover GR in it's domain of applicability. Einstein developed a model using 'torsion' as the source of gravity.
Teleparallelism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism
The author says the speed of gravity can be ..... you fill in the blanks..... in the discussion section for Gravitomagnetism, 4.5 Summary, ~pg. 152.
The solid elastic ether interpretation doesn't predict the speed of gravity is c [based on what the author said] so it disagrees with GR. Spacetime curvature was measured during the Gravity Probe B experiment. It took years of technical advances to actually create an experiment which could make the measurements. I'm not against different models but 'any such' has to recover GR in it's domain of applicability. Einstein developed a model using 'torsion' as the source of gravity.
Teleparallelism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism
The author says the speed of gravity can be ..... you fill in the blanks..... in the discussion section for Gravitomagnetism, 4.5 Summary, ~pg. 152.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 6 2012, 03:37 PM)
Why do I find this so comical?
Because you're simple..?
Because you're simple..?
QUOTE
Thus far we have regarded the gravitational potential, and the elastic aether, as being
static but variable in space. This point of view cannot be valid for observers with arbitrary
relative motion. If the gravitational disturbance propagates through space with a speed different
than that of light, then it could be possible to determine the absolute rest frame of the aether from
the directional changes in the apparent velocity of the gravitational disturbance (gravity waves).
However, if the gravitational disturbance propagates with the same speed as light waves, then it
will conform to the ordinary Lorentz transformations and there would be no way to determine an
absolute reference frame.We will assume that this is the case
He doesn't claim that it is different, only that it could be different, and that he assumes it would be c. Either way, it it something that can probably be verified experimentally at some point.
Did the gravity Probe B measure the speed? (I couldn't find anything)
There is one other difference that might at some point be testable:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Thus far we have regarded the gravitational potential, and the elastic aether, as being static but variable in space. This point of view cannot be valid for observers with arbitrary relative motion. If the gravitational disturbance propagates through space with a speed different than that of light, then it could be possible to determine the absolute rest frame of the aether from the directional changes in the apparent velocity of the gravitational disturbance (gravity waves). However, if the gravitational disturbance propagates with the same speed as light waves, then it will conform to the ordinary Lorentz transformations and there would be no way to determine an absolute reference frame.We will assume that this is the case |
He doesn't claim that it is different, only that it could be different, and that he assumes it would be c. Either way, it it something that can probably be verified experimentally at some point.
Did the gravity Probe B measure the speed? (I couldn't find anything)
There is one other difference that might at some point be testable:
Unlike quantum theories in which gravity waves are assigned a spin of 2, the
present model treats gravity as a scalar associated with changes in either density or elasticity of
the solid aether. There is absolutely no physical evidence indicating that gravity should be
quantized.
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 6 2012, 06:33 PM)
Ok, for one, I don't see why the waves alone are not enough, why would you need yet another layer below it... seems like adding additional levels that are not needed, so based on Occams Razor, why would you do that unless it is really necessary.
QM so far seems to explain things pretty well... and the QM equations are all wave equations. So... why do you need another layer?
I didn't understand why you bring up the photon and the doppler effect either :-).
To me the only "issue" is that the whole SR/GR/QM stuff has two interpretations using the exact same math. One is based on LET, matter being waves, solid universe etc and the other more abstract interpretation.
But if you favor LET, you would also have to stick with the idea that matter are purely waves.
What would make you think that you need yet another layer (particles that create waves?)
From what I understand you can't really mix the two. You can't have a solid universe with matter moving through it... (but I am happy to be proven wrong).
I read Van Flandern's papers and even his book - I think he has a few good points, but it didn't completely convince me. Unfurtunately he died, so we can't ask him :-(. (I even had email contact with him because I had some questions :-). I liked that he thinks out of the box.
The first link doesn't work for me.
Chantal
I favor LET because it does not use useless time... But that doesn't mean it's perfect... I'm stating a few ways I believe it's not quite right. We need to define what we call physical... Atoms are physical... The ideas that may have come up years ago before all the pieces were around may have seemed to fit.., if they made an assumption or two in the wrong direction, but they do not all jive today and should not be considered as being cut in stone...
The waves alone would be nice if they could come out of nowhere. Explain how waves alone are possible and you'll have something... Until then, photons do exhibit both qualities, and I believe the particle produces the wave... Because that goes along with everything else I know about waves... That it takes something physical to do the job. In this case photons create visible waves just as electrons create RF waves... They mix with the various gravities to produce the wave front appropriate for that gravity strength. Similar to a local oscillator mixing with the incoming RF wave to produce an intermediate frequency frequency for tuning purposes... Then our eyes 'detect' that IF frequency, which is now the same for all 'stations'... This is how they can be seen as both... Photons through the slit do spread their visible waves forward in an arc once they get through it, do they not..? Give me a better explanation on how this can be done. Or any plausible explanation at all.. Starting first with how the waves are produced..
As for the aether, and adding another level. The Greeks we pretty smart, and you too, for saying it exists... I'm simply agreeing... It makes sense and there is evidence it does exist... As in dark energy perhaps..? It may well be the true infinite speed interconnecting highway of the cosmos and not gravity as such... There is the gravity of course.., in the local gravity attraction areas of a galaxy.., as opposed to some other force that is apparently expanding those those local attraction areas apart from each other... There are two separate things going on out there.. I'm not the one who is adding another layer... I'm simply extrapolating from accepted facts to explain, in my view, how what is being seen could be working together as a whole...
And talking about extra layers... lol What about Einstein sticking time into the works. Now there was a real case of going against Occams Razor by putting in an unnecessary middle layer. And it was an extremely confusing one at that...
I'm trying to use what is truly physical, but he just took his imagination and made it the 4th dimention... Yuk..!
So while I say LET is the way to go.., it is not the entire answer. That's why my postulates are not the same and why I post in 'new theories'... If everything previously published was accepted as the truth., there would be no advancement.., and no one would think it worthwhile to create such a forum much post to it... Everyone would be happy little donkeys going after that carrot dangling from the stick in front of it... Because new theories go against previous measurements and theories is not the reason one can say they're wrong... Some of those previous measurements and theories are likely wrong too.
We need to find the theory of everything because Einstein couldn't do it.., and what we have now is not working. The loose ends are being ignored... Not only is SR creating one big dizzy-land, the only reason it has detracted from LET and GR because measurements of light, etc. were were done with equipment and methods that were themselves being kept in sync with the variations they were trying to measure...
I explained why I brought up the photon and the doppler effect... Why are you asking... Do you see a light wave leaving you..? Unless a light wave bounces off an air molecule, or a dust mote.., and returns straight on.., you won't even know a beam of light is going past your head from the rear. Ergo the waves the photon is radiating in a circle around it in its travels are stretched beyond the point our eyes have evolved to see them as light. Everything is running a very fine line out there. And any slight difference can make a huge difference in some aspect of it... The least amount of 'error' by mismatching or compounding across the cosmos would cause it all to stop... And since there is obviously a theory of everything.., everything will work in conjunction with everything else, precisely, to the enth degree... So iow, the approaching or departing doppler shift of light waves makes a difference to our eyes being able to see them or not...
IMHO you know..?
So what is wrong with it besides that it doesn't quite agree with other's previous thoughts..?
Oh btw.., the aether is not 'solid' as in solid.. RF has always said to travel through it.., and we obviously are traveling through it... Particles can in fact travel through it...
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 7 2012, 05:53 AM)
He doesn't claim that it is different, only that it could be different, and that he assumes it would be c. Either way, it it something that can probably be verified experimentally at some point.
Did the gravity Probe B measure the speed? (I couldn't find anything)
There is one other difference that might at some point be testable:
.... 'it could be this or that' predictions are crackpot bullshit. Go back and read the two references I made to what Gravity Probe B measured. It didn't measure a solid elastic ether.
photo_guy,
if you read what phonons are, you will see that what vibrates is the crystal itself.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/...gs/ex5/phonons/
(see also first post, wikipedia entry).
Phonons are similar to photons. Phonons are vibrations in a crystal and move through the crystal as sound waves, and have particle like characteristics.
Similarly in LET, matter waves (and photons) move through the solid ether just like phonons move through a crystal.
So there are no actual particles moving through the solid, just waves....
Chantal
if you read what phonons are, you will see that what vibrates is the crystal itself.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/...gs/ex5/phonons/
(see also first post, wikipedia entry).
Phonons are similar to photons. Phonons are vibrations in a crystal and move through the crystal as sound waves, and have particle like characteristics.
Similarly in LET, matter waves (and photons) move through the solid ether just like phonons move through a crystal.
So there are no actual particles moving through the solid, just waves....
Chantal
brucep
from what I read Gravity probe B measured the frame dragging effect and the geodetic effect.
Both are consistent with LET. Robert close also wrote about the frame dragging effect in the context of a solid universe.
The one difference in the two theories is that at least based on R. Close, there is no reason for gravity to be quantized.
Chantal
from what I read Gravity probe B measured the frame dragging effect and the geodetic effect.
Both are consistent with LET. Robert close also wrote about the frame dragging effect in the context of a solid universe.
The one difference in the two theories is that at least based on R. Close, there is no reason for gravity to be quantized.
Chantal
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 8 2012, 11:13 AM)
photo_guy,
if you read what phonons are, you will see that what vibrates is the crystal itself.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/...gs/ex5/phonons/
(see also first post, wikipedia entry).
Phonons are similar to photons. Phonons are vibrations in a crystal and move through the crystal as sound waves, and have particle like characteristics.
Similarly in LET, matter waves (and photons) move through the solid ether just like phonons move through a crystal.
So there are no actual particles moving through the solid, just waves....
Chantal
I understand the crystal is vibrating itself... We use crystals in radio to vibrate at specific frequencies too... But we cause them to vibrate... Are you saying your crystal is simply vibrating by itself..? I don't believe so... Something *makes* it vibrate.. At least the atoms that comprise it and they are resonating... For one it is moving through the aether's flux... That which creates the visible-to-our-eyes vibrations of photon particles... Something that may in fact be allowing twin particles... And which may also provide those magical virtual particles a place to jump from and back to... There IS a unifying force... Is that not inevitable..?
Btw, you may also be interested in the new topic if you haven't already seen it...
e=mbc not e=mc2
The original paper is at the link I posted in a reply to it.., and here...
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/37/New%2...20Issue%202.pdf
if you read what phonons are, you will see that what vibrates is the crystal itself.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/...gs/ex5/phonons/
(see also first post, wikipedia entry).
Phonons are similar to photons. Phonons are vibrations in a crystal and move through the crystal as sound waves, and have particle like characteristics.
Similarly in LET, matter waves (and photons) move through the solid ether just like phonons move through a crystal.
So there are no actual particles moving through the solid, just waves....
Chantal
I understand the crystal is vibrating itself... We use crystals in radio to vibrate at specific frequencies too... But we cause them to vibrate... Are you saying your crystal is simply vibrating by itself..? I don't believe so... Something *makes* it vibrate.. At least the atoms that comprise it and they are resonating... For one it is moving through the aether's flux... That which creates the visible-to-our-eyes vibrations of photon particles... Something that may in fact be allowing twin particles... And which may also provide those magical virtual particles a place to jump from and back to... There IS a unifying force... Is that not inevitable..?
Btw, you may also be interested in the new topic if you haven't already seen it...
e=mbc not e=mc2
The original paper is at the link I posted in a reply to it.., and here...
http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/37/New%2...20Issue%202.pdf
QUOTE (korosten+Apr 8 2012, 11:19 AM)
brucep
from what I read Gravity probe B measured the frame dragging effect and the geodetic effect.
Both are consistent with LET. Robert close also wrote about the frame dragging effect in the context of a solid universe.
The one difference in the two theories is that at least based on R. Close, there is no reason for gravity to be quantized.
Chantal
That's bullshit. LET isn't a theory of gravity. GR is the theory of gravity and the author admits his model isn't equivalent to GR because it doesn't predict the speed of gravity IS c. I'm tired of repeating myself so 'I'm out' as the Sharks say.
Gravity Probe B measured the geodetic effect [spacetime curvature] and frame dragging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect
from what I read Gravity probe B measured the frame dragging effect and the geodetic effect.
Both are consistent with LET. Robert close also wrote about the frame dragging effect in the context of a solid universe.
The one difference in the two theories is that at least based on R. Close, there is no reason for gravity to be quantized.
Chantal
That's bullshit. LET isn't a theory of gravity. GR is the theory of gravity and the author admits his model isn't equivalent to GR because it doesn't predict the speed of gravity IS c. I'm tired of repeating myself so 'I'm out' as the Sharks say.
Gravity Probe B measured the geodetic effect [spacetime curvature] and frame dragging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect
If I may suggest somethimg, the aether IS the vibrating crystal or semisolid. And matter is not moving through anyting, matter is the result of vibrating aether, matter is the result of reconfigurations in situ of aether or cosmos. Everything is the other way round, Everything should be seen and understood and explained from bottom up.
Aether is vibrating because the atoms are vibrating and the atoms are vibrating because the atoms are made up of smaller constituents that are vibrating and so on infinitely into smaller and smaller constituents.
And in order to get to a frame of reference one need at a certain point to define the smallest constituents or perhaps better to say the grainity grade or the accuracy by which one like to define the physical world out from.
This is what I refer to as «objects on sameness«, and such «particles« are filling space out shoulder by shoulder. Objects of sameness are being characterized by having a 3D body and a shape, nothing else. It is not until a certain size thar we can start saying anything about size and shape, and this is relative to the physical world that we can perceive via our senses. It is a scale.
Universe or cosmos is NOT moving, everything can be seen as reconfigurations in situ.
Now Universe strives after best fit, and objects of sameness reconfigure their orientation with neighboring objects of sameness in order to get a more optimal fit, in order to minimize free void. Free void can be translated into VACUUM and it is the relative distribution of free vacuum over the universal space that constitutes the fuel or energy of physical universe. Universe strives after obtaining equal vacuum all over. Vacuum is not quantitized,
In this way it is possible to come up with a more general model that merge GR and QM.
Objects of sameness are not defined by absolute accuracy, they are being defined with the accuracy of the underlying calculus. There exist no such thing as absolute accuracy in the physical world, where the physical world IMO is being defined as the reality or real world that we humans create via our minds, in our decoding of cosmos.
Lack of proof is not proof of lack. All ideas are IMO by definition based upon metaphores, and there is no good reason to say that an atom for instance is more real than an object of sameness. Both of them are metaphores.
The above is IMO no more no less speculative than what is being put forward by others.
Aether is vibrating because the atoms are vibrating and the atoms are vibrating because the atoms are made up of smaller constituents that are vibrating and so on infinitely into smaller and smaller constituents.
And in order to get to a frame of reference one need at a certain point to define the smallest constituents or perhaps better to say the grainity grade or the accuracy by which one like to define the physical world out from.
This is what I refer to as «objects on sameness«, and such «particles« are filling space out shoulder by shoulder. Objects of sameness are being characterized by having a 3D body and a shape, nothing else. It is not until a certain size thar we can start saying anything about size and shape, and this is relative to the physical world that we can perceive via our senses. It is a scale.
Universe or cosmos is NOT moving, everything can be seen as reconfigurations in situ.
Now Universe strives after best fit, and objects of sameness reconfigure their orientation with neighboring objects of sameness in order to get a more optimal fit, in order to minimize free void. Free void can be translated into VACUUM and it is the relative distribution of free vacuum over the universal space that constitutes the fuel or energy of physical universe. Universe strives after obtaining equal vacuum all over. Vacuum is not quantitized,
In this way it is possible to come up with a more general model that merge GR and QM.
Objects of sameness are not defined by absolute accuracy, they are being defined with the accuracy of the underlying calculus. There exist no such thing as absolute accuracy in the physical world, where the physical world IMO is being defined as the reality or real world that we humans create via our minds, in our decoding of cosmos.
Lack of proof is not proof of lack. All ideas are IMO by definition based upon metaphores, and there is no good reason to say that an atom for instance is more real than an object of sameness. Both of them are metaphores.
The above is IMO no more no less speculative than what is being put forward by others.
Not.
Void.
Stupefy /
Void.
Stupefy /
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Apr 10 2012, 12:25 AM)
Not.
Void.
Stupefy /
stupefy
Well I am not quire sure if it is meant positive, anyhow.
I cannot imagine discreteness without having the concept of void at hand. And I cannot imagine physicality without having the concept of discreteness at hand. We are dicussing among others phonons vs real particles, and this is IMO not meaningful without trying to introduce the concept of real. And real is a physical concept.
To me real is closely being related to scale, because in order to be real, IT (the real) must in some way or another be interferable with human physical senses. And human PHYSICAL senses is being related to those mindaggregations that can interfere with someting that show a certain SIZE. One example of the smallest that a human Physical sense can detect is probably the size of photon (electron), and we use this ability in our perceiving of physical world (mainly for orientation in space). We do not know the size of gravitational forces, but it is quite logical that there must exist a similar quantized or discrete entity that interferes with the physical sense of acelleration. And so on.
Scale and energy and interferability are well known qualities when it comes to screening, asymptotic freedom and like concepts. However we will probably always face the deep paradox of infinite in the context of existence and physical.
Void.
Stupefy /
stupefy
Well I am not quire sure if it is meant positive, anyhow.
I cannot imagine discreteness without having the concept of void at hand. And I cannot imagine physicality without having the concept of discreteness at hand. We are dicussing among others phonons vs real particles, and this is IMO not meaningful without trying to introduce the concept of real. And real is a physical concept.
To me real is closely being related to scale, because in order to be real, IT (the real) must in some way or another be interferable with human physical senses. And human PHYSICAL senses is being related to those mindaggregations that can interfere with someting that show a certain SIZE. One example of the smallest that a human Physical sense can detect is probably the size of photon (electron), and we use this ability in our perceiving of physical world (mainly for orientation in space). We do not know the size of gravitational forces, but it is quite logical that there must exist a similar quantized or discrete entity that interferes with the physical sense of acelleration. And so on.
Scale and energy and interferability are well known qualities when it comes to screening, asymptotic freedom and like concepts. However we will probably always face the deep paradox of infinite in the context of existence and physical.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.