Nick
How does mass slow down time? Speeding up in space slows clocks but how does mass?

Relativity is wrong. Only one clock can go slower than the other. Only the accelerated particle will have its clock run slow.

The station does not move through space to get closer to the train. An accelerated particle will not see the accelerators clock running slow.

Zephir
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 05:31 AM)
How does mass slow down time? Speeding up in space slows clocks but how does mass?

By AWT the time doesn't slows down, just the energy spreading speed. How?

By the quite simple way - by increasing of the density of the foam, which is forming the Aether. The more dense the foam is, the more slow is the energy spreading, the more slow is time.

From such perspective, both the movement, both the presence of another mass increases the vacuum density by the same way. The dense mass attracts then neighboring vacuum, thus making it slightly more dense. The movement through vacuum increases the speed, at which membranes in vacuum bubbles oscillate. The higher motion, the higher energy density, the higher pitch, at which the membranes are resonating. The higher pitch requires the decreasing of the average bubble diameter. The vacuum becomes more dense, thus the subsequent energy spreading is slower. It requires a more energy to increase the motion speed even more. As the result, the motion slows down the clocks due the relativistic increasing of inertial mass.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 23 2006, 10:31 PM)
How does mass slow down time? Speeding up in space slows clocks but how does mass?

Relativity is wrong. Only one clock can go slower than the other. Only the accelerated particle will have its clock run slow.

The station does not move through space to get closer to the train. An accelerated particle will not see the accelerators clock running slow.

Why do you even bother posting?? You never listen to anyone. You have posted these ignorant statements multiple times, and people have already answered you. Just because you don't understand, that doesn't mean that you can just say things like "relativity is wrong." You are apparently just posting to hear yourself talk. Never mind the fact that this is a forum, not a bulletin board. You cannot prove anything that you are saying. You can't even back up your statements with anything more advanced than something a third grader would say. I strongly advise you to learn something about physics before you continue wasting space on this forum with your reiterative posts.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 02:31 AM)

Relativity is wrong.

The fact that you don't understand relativity doesn't make it wrong.

QUOTE
Only one clock can go slower than the other. Only the accelerated particle will have its clock run slow.

This has been explained to you several times by several people. The fact that you don't get it doesn't make it wrong. The clocks don't slow down themselves, they still go at their native rate. Each observer perceives the clock in the OTHER frame slowing down. As it has been explained to you: if you and your brother drive away from each other , each of you sees the other getting smaller in the rear view mirror. Does that meant that each of you gets smaller? When you meet again, are Nick and his brother shorter? Do you have a driver license? If yes, try the experiment.

<rest of nonsense snipped in order to give you room to digest the above>

BTW, Zeph's explanation based on AWT is of course invalid, because AWT is a null and void theory, refuted by experiment, so all AWR-based explanations are invalid.
rpenner
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 02:31 AM)
How does mass slow down time?Speeding up in space slows clocks but how does mass?
Since this is a General Relativity question, I'm tempted to ignore it because your later questions show that you have not embraced the core concepts of Special Relativity, which is from the viewpoint of negligible gravitation.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 02:31 AM)
Relativity is wrong.
A statement unsubstantiated by any experiment I know of. Here's 100 years of testing of SR. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097 Here's 90 years of testing of GR. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072 So where's the "wrong?"
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 02:31 AM)
Only one clock can go slower than the other.
This statement is completely demonstrable if there is such a thing as a measurable absolute time. Relativity says there is no such thing even in principle. Therefore, your statement cannot be based on the foundation of SR, which means the "wrong" is in your assumptions.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 02:31 AM)
Only the accelerated particle will have its clock run slow.
This is devoid of context, and in SR the ratio between clock rates only depends on the magnitude of the relative velocity. Since any two observers in inertial motion have exactly the same magnitude of the relative velocity each must observe the other's clock to be running slow by the same numerical factor. In addition, there are scenarios related to the twin paradox where neither or both twins experience acceleration, so no fundamental relation between acceleration and clocks is possible. What is fundamental is the Lorentz-Invariant proper time of a time-like world-line.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 02:31 AM)
The station does not move through space to get closer to the train.
Actually, the station is not at rest to the distant stars. In 1720s, James Bradley discovered the effect of stellar aberration, the first direct astronomical evidence for Copernicus’ heliostatic model of the solar system, and proof of the finite velocity of light, so we know the Earth both revolves and is in motion to the distant stars. So from many perspectives, the station is in motion.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 24 2006, 02:31 AM)
An accelerated particle will not see the accelerators clock running slow.
Experiments with "transverse doppler effect" and turntables and the Mössbauer effect have proven this statement wrong. Only relative velocity is important.

Ives, H. E., and Stilwell, G. R., “An experimental study of the rate of a moving atomic clock”, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 28, 215–226, (1938).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives-Stilwell_experiment
Rossi, B., and Hall, D. B., “Variation of the rate of decay of mesotrons with momentum”, Phys. Rev., 59, 223–228, (1941).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossi-Hall_experiment
Farley, F.J.M., Bailey, J., Brown, R.C.A., Giesch, M., J¨ostlein, H., van der Meer, S., Picasso, E., and Tannenbaum, M., "The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Negative Muon" Nuovo Cim., 45, 281-286, (1966).
H. J. Hay, J. P. Schiffer, T. E. Cranshaw, and P. A. Egelstaff "Measurement of the Red Shift in an Accelerated System Using the Mössbauer Effect in Fe57"
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 165–166 (1960)

http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/406_43.html
tlocity
The theory of Relativity does not deal with the nature of time. Relativity is about the relationships of moving objects. Einstein did not declare that there was no absolute frame. His statement was that none was required for his theory to be correct. The Theory of Relativity works even in relationships with an absolute frame of reference.

The change of clock function is not just an observation between frames. Clocks in a moving frame tick slower and the record of the elapse time. The clock from one moving frame may be brought back to a clock in a different frame and the difference in the time on the two clocks may be compared. It is found that the difference in the two clocks is dependent on the amount of time the two clocks spend at different velocities and the difference between the two velocities.
There is nothing in this theory that eliminates a frame at zero velocity.

This function can be seen any day in the difference between the clocks on earth and those in the GPS system.
Nick
Time is absolute. It can slow down.

There is a TIME CURVE *VANADESSE.

Rpen> Each observer perceives the clock in the OTHER frame slowing down

But only one can be going slower. The one that accelerated through distance relative to the other. *If we don't know that we couldn't know the distance of anything at all; or the size of the universe at all.
Lalbatros
Nick,

I think it is not correct to say that "clocks slow down".
Actually time slows down and clocks just do as usual.

Einstein explained clearly why the constancy of the speed of light can be understood if and only if time coordinates appear differently to observers in different frames. Before Einstein explained the basics, this fact was already known since at least 10 year, why the name "Lorentz transformation". Before Einstein, the difficulty was to integrate the Lorentz transformation in the rest of physics. The understanding by Einstein led him to reconcilate Newtonian mechanics and Electromagnetism.

There are many experimental proof of this fact.
I like the example of particles lifetimes. The lifetimes of elementary particles can be measured by many different ways in many different circumstances. It appears that the observed lifetime grows when a particle moves at a greater speed. That is very fortunate because it makes the observation of particles easier in particle accelerators when they reach velocities near the speed of light. Near the speed of light, particles, in the laboratory frame, get lifetimes that grow near infinity, at least as compared to their lifetime in their ows frame.

This example shows that relativity is not a day-to-day science, it deal with situations totally unsusal in real life. This is why it may be difficult to understand. This is also the great merit of Einstein: understanding something far beyond common knowledge.

Michel
rpenner
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 25 2006, 04:38 AM)
Time is absolute. It can slow down.
This is a contradiction in terms.
If it is absolute, then it cannot slow down.
If it can slow down (relative to what?), then it must not be absolute.

QUOTE (Nick+Sep 25 2006, 04:38 AM)
There is a TIME CURVE *VANADESSE.
Could you be any less clear? Yes. You could be advocating Time Cube

QUOTE (Nick+Sep 25 2006, 04:38 AM)
Rpen> Each observer perceives the clock in the OTHER frame slowing down

But only one can be going slower. The one that accelerated through distance  relative to the other. *If we don't know that we couldn't know the distance of anything at all; or the size of the universe at all.
"Only one can be slower" is not logically founded on the postulates of SR. Each is slower from a different point of view.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=78648
QUOTE (Wallace+Apr 1 2006, 07:22 AM)
In asking 'who's clocks run slow' in your alleged problem with reciprocity you appeal to some universal absolute time with which you can compare the stations and trains clocks. The point of relatvity is that their is no such thing, your clocks tick speed can only be compared to some other observer, not to some absolute fram that can decide 'who runs slow'.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=122210
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 10 2006, 05:50 AM)
Nick, what's your beef with SR? You have three choices:
1. You have specific physical evidence that SR, often called Local Lorentz Invariance is wrong. As the scientific literature is an unbroken 100 years of SR successes in physics experiments, such physical evidence would constitute Scientific Discovery in Physics and would certainly get you the Nobel Prize in a 3-7 year time frame.
2. You disagree with the mathematics of Minkowski, or alternately Lorentz, as being the math of the universe. As the math of Euclid has definitely been proven wrong, then you might believe any number of things and be consistent with the record of physics experiment. You might believe in a "small" correction factor to gamma, or a small preferred frame effect. You might even have a chain of logic to support this theory and can explain how Einstein so nearly got it right and still managed to get it wrong. Such is the work of Theoretical physics.
3. You object to non-Euclidean math despite the evidence. This is not physics. This is not mathematics. This is not logic. Not being driven by logic, you naturally find it difficult to construct an argument to convince others of things you just know.
Lalbatros
Nick,

Here is cool site about special relativity:

You will find there the explanation for time dilatation.
You will also find the example of muons lifetime.

Michel
Zephir
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Sep 25 2006, 02:28 PM)
...You will find there the explanation for time dilatation...

The special relativity doesn't explain the time dilatation in fact. The time or space dilatation are all trivial results of c=const postulate, which is subject of belief (though well experimentally supported, of course) in SR without deeper theoretical reasoning. By AWT the real explanation comes from the foamy structure of Aether, which is forming the "space-time" for light wave spreading.

The time dilatation is given by the fact, the increasing of particle energy requires the more intensive energy vibrations inside of particle at the motion direction.
Try to imagine, the particle moves through space like undulating ribbon through the wind or rattlesnake through sand. The increasing of particle speed requires the faster vibrations of bubble membranes inside the Aether foam, which are parallel to the motion direction. This in turn requires to increase the tension of these membranes, which will collapse at the motion direction and the foam tends to increase its density at the motion direction (so called multidimensional local time). The directional increasing of string density leads to the local slowing of time by the similar (but not very same) way, like at the presence of gravitational gradient.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 25 2006, 01:16 PM)
The special relativity doesn't explain the time dilatation in fact. The ..... space dilatation are all trivial results of c=const postulate, which is subject of belief (though well experimentally supported, of course) in SR without deeper theoretical reasoning. <rest of BS snipped>

Ha,ha,ha, this is one of the most memorable fumbles. Looks like you discovered new physics.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 25 2006, 04:43 PM)
Looks like you discovered new physics.

Do you think so? I'll consider it...
Lalbatros
Zephir,

You are right to say:
QUOTE
The special relativity doesn't explain the time dilatation in fact.

What I meant is that on this cool web site, it is explained, in simple terms, how the constancy of the speed of light leads to the conclusion of the relativity of time.

It is mathematically simple, but I would not say it is trivial. Quite the contrary, behind the appearance of simplicity it appears more difficult to understand than Riemanian geometry. This is an experimental fact: ask students.

Now saying it
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The special relativity doesn't explain the time dilatation in fact.

What I meant is that on this cool web site, it is explained, in simple terms, how the constancy of the speed of light leads to the conclusion of the relativity of time.

It is mathematically simple, but I would not say it is trivial. Quite the contrary, behind the appearance of simplicity it appears more difficult to understand than Riemanian geometry. This is an experimental fact: ask students.

Now saying it is subject of belief
is not serious. Do you only remember the history before 1905? Classical physics and eletromagnetism were at stake at that time. Never since then has a proposal in physics had a deeper meaning: it was necessary to reconcile two parts of physics and it implied radical conceptual changes. It was is the first time in science that our spacetime was understood as an experimental object instead of a given framework.

Michel
Zephir
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Sep 25 2006, 05:32 PM)
Do you only remember the history before 1905? Classical physics and electromagnetism were at stake at that time. Never since then has a proposal in physics had a deeper meaning....

Until 1905 the physic was a quite homogeneous and the Aether was mainstream, if not dominant concept - just based on the electromagnetism theory.

The divergence between quantum mechanic and relativity theory is artificially introduced into physic, because the concept of foamy elastic environment enables to seamlessly integrate it. With Aether concept nobody would even realize some problem.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 25 2006, 02:53 PM)
Until 1905 the physic was a quite homogeneous and the Aether was mainstream, if not dominant concept - just based on the electromagnetism theory.

The divergence between quantum mechanic and relativity theory is artificially introduced into physic, because the concept of foamy elastic environment enables to seamlessly integrate it. With Aether concept nobody would even realize some problem.

So now you claim that AWT integrates relativity and QM? You never made this bold statement before. Especially considering that you haven't risen to the challenge to prove AWT valid. Experiments prove it invalid.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 25 2006, 06:32 PM)
Experiments prove it invalid.

Can you prove such claim? Show the math!
Lalbatros
Zephir,

I have the feeling you do not answer to my comment.
Shall I conclude that you don't believe any more that time expansion is a belief ?
Shall I also conclude that you think before 1905 Aether was the mainstream belief ?

Michel
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 25 2006, 03:52 PM)
Can you prove such claim? Show the math!

he,he,he.
It is the other way around: I challenged you long ago to defend your theory with math. It has been a few days, you are still trying (unsuccessfully) to weasel out of doing it.

Let me explain to you one more time; The serious (not the crank) aether theories can explain the experiments I listed for you (otherwise they would be dismissed immedialy, like AWT). So, here is the challenge:

Prove mathematically that your AWT can explain : MMX, KT,IS, PR. Get going, you are wasting time trying to give the runaround.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 25 2006, 09:16 AM)
The special relativity doesn't explain the time dilatation in fact. The time or space dilatation are all trivial results of c=const postulate, which is subject of belief (though well experimentally supported, of course) in SR without deeper theoretical reasoning. By AWT the real explanation comes from the foamy structure of Aether, which is forming the "space-time" for light wave spreading.

...?? Just because you don't understand the "theoretical reasoning" doesn't mean it isn't there. There is MUCH more to relativity than two equations (for time dilation and length contraction). You can't disprove a theory that you don't understand...
QUOTE
Until 1905 the physic was a quite homogeneous and the Aether was mainstream, if not dominant concept - just based on the electromagnetism theory.

And that somehow supports your cause?? Do you really believe that thousands of scientists who were smarter than all of us just accepted the idea that the aether didn't exist overnight? It took cogent arguments and mathematical and physical proof of relativity and the uselessness of the aether to convince them. You should not be so conceited as to think that you're the only one with an "aether theory". There have been hundreds before you, and no one has succeeded yet. Maybe you will, but first you will have to create a cogent theory, complete with mathematics and experimental evidence to back it up.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Sep 25 2006, 11:14 PM)
.... but first you will have to create a cogent theory, complete with mathematics and experimental evidence to back it up.

There are few things with probability = 0. THIS is one of them.
Zephir
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Sep 26 2006, 02:14 AM)
...Just because you don't understand the "theoretical reasoning" doesn't mean it isn't there...

The light speed invariance is ad-hoc postulate in relativity theory (i.e. the assumption, that is accepted without proof). It means, it cannot be explained by relativity theory by it's very definition.

QUOTE (*vanadesse+Sep 26 2006, 02:14 AM)
...You can't disprove a theory that you don't understand...

This is exactly true with respect of the Pupamancur attempts to disprove the AWT. But I've no reason to disprove the relativity theory, just because the relativity theory is built upon the postulates, which can be derived from Aether theory directly. It means. if the relativity theory is invalid, then the Aether theory will be invalid too with high probability..
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 25 2006, 11:52 PM)
The light speed invariance is ad-hoc postulate in relativity theory (i.e. the assumption, that is accepted without proof). It means, it cannot be explained by relativity theory by it's very definition.

<rest of the rant snipped>

it is confirmed by experiment . But don't expect you to understand this notion.
The same way AWT is falsified by experiment. Don't expect you to understand this notion either.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 26 2006, 03:48 AM)
it is confirmed by experiment . The same way AWT is falsified by experiment.

Maxwell-Lorentz aether theory: c=const
Michellson-Morley experiment: c=const
Pupamancur: aether is falsified by experiment
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 25 2006, 07:52 PM)
This is exactly true with respect of the Pupamancur attempts to disprove the AWT. But I've no reason to disprove the relativity theory, just because the relativity theory is built upon the postulates, which can be derived from Aether theory directly. It means. if the relativity theory is invalid, then the Aether theory will be invalid too with high probability..

If you truly understood Relativity theory, you would understand why there is no use for an aether.
QUOTE
Maxwell-Lorentz aether theory: c=const
Michellson-Morley experiment: c=const
Pupamancur: aether is falsified by experiment

That's just one tiny part of the theories accepted today. Just because your aether theory doesn't contradict one piece of information, doesn't mean that it doesn't contradict something else. Since your theory is supposedly a "theory of everything", it has to agree with every single experiment ever done. It doesn't. If it does, you have yet to prove it.
tlocity
The nature of time and the function of clocks

The first thing to look at is if clock functions are independent of physical change in the world of Relativity. If all types of clocks indicate the same with increasing velocity then all or any clock must not have any change with any change of physical functions that is a function of velocity.

It is well demonstrated that there is an increase in mass of all objects as velocity in increased. This is most notable in particle accelerators where applied forces must compensated for increase in mass.

If we now turn to the simple pendulum clock and note that the time keeping function of a pendulum clock is dependent on mass. We are now faced with this question. Does the change in mass account for the clock slowing down with increase in velocity and account for the change expected by Relativity. If it does than it is clear that clocks change rate due to physical change and time itself is not slowing down.
On the other hand if it is thought that the pendulum clock keeps real time just as all other clocks. Then as time slows down with increase in velocity, the change in the rate of the pendulum clock caused by a change in mass must be added to pendulum clocks. In that case pendulum clock would slow down twice as fast as clocks that always indicate real time.

The only answer is that the slowing down of clocks is a function of physical change and not a measure of the change of time.

Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 26 2006, 01:05 AM)
Maxwell-Lorentz aether theory: c=const
Michellson-Morley experiment: c=const
Pupamancur: aether is falsified by experiment

Correct, AWT is falsified by experiment.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 26 2006, 08:02 AM)
...AWT is falsified by experiment....

ronterry
Because mass has a gravitational field. Speeding up in space slows clocks (time) because of the associated increase in mass (and its associated gravitational field). Assuming equivalence is true.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 26 2006, 07:42 AM)

...as it has helped you thru your thosands of false posts

Cheers

Pupamancur
4Dguy

What is a gravitational field but an aether?
Zephir
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 28 2006, 03:13 AM)
What is a gravitational field but an aether?

You can bring up the gravitational field as the tendency of matter/energy to spread by the shortest/straightest path available. In the system of recursive foam it leads to the repeated collapse of such foam due the inhomogeneities, because the inner bubbles of such foam are always pressed by the surrounding bubbles. The bubble interior can be considered as the virtual particles with negative curvature/gravity, i.e. the bosons, or "radiation energy". Whereas the bubble walls or dropplets of dense phase corresponds the fermions. It's evident, inside the most dense foam with 1:1 volume ratio (like the liquid-vapor mixture in supercritical vapor) the exact distinction between fermions and bosons doesn't exist at all (i.e. the gravitons).

The conditionally stable state of foam is just this one with flat membranes - but this is a metastable state at the same time. Whenever some more dense foam appears, the curvature becomes negative and the foam will lose it ability to resist the cumulated pressure of the neighboring bubbles. The density of such bubbles will increase, until phase transition occurs under the boil formation of new big stable bubbles with low curvature. This process is recursive, whole our universe can be considered as such collapsing bubble full of bosons and some subtle amount of fermions, too.

The dragging effect of smaller bubbles to the places of negative curvature is similar to the diffusion of matter/energy and it can be described by the concentration leveling as a diffusion. By such way, the gravity has entropic nature. Near the black holes we can imagine the opposite process, the dissolving of matter into radiation and the migration of bosons from the center of black hole as well. By such way, all the physical processes thinkable are controlled just by "curvature of nested curvatures". The AWT even supplies a dynamic model of this Lagrangian mechanic based on recursive wave spreading along density gradients.

By such way, at least six nearly equivalent interpretations/explanations of AWT exists so far: the wave model, the particle model, the torsion field/elastic EM lattice model, the droplet/foam model, nested vortex fluid model and the statistical/diffusion one. We can bring-up some another models, definitelly.
4Dguy

Can any of you explain why light travels faster east to west than it does from west to east?
Pupamancur
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 28 2006, 03:30 AM)

Can any of you explain why light travels faster east to west than it does from west to east?

Where did you get that? It isn't true.
Light speed is fully isotropic, there are a few experiments that confirm it.
Are you talking about "closing speed"? What exactly are you referring to?
Pan
The battery is prolly dying.

sorry.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 28 2006, 06:39 AM)
...Light speed is fully isotropic, there are a few experiments that confirm it...

The ignorance of "negative results" (despite of its subtlety and claims in textbooks) is highly non-scientific approach in general, Pupa...

...Contrary to the generally accepted ideas (...I'd say beliefs, instead..) , but in agreement with the point of view expressed by Hicks in 1902, Miller in 1933 and Munera in 1998, the results of Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be considered null. The observed fringe shifts, although smaller than the classical prediction corresponding to the orbital motion of the Earth, point to an effective observable velocity vobs = 8.4±0.5 km/s. As emphasized at the end of Sect.2 and at the end of Sect.5, this value is exactly the same average value obtained by Miller in his observations at Mt.Wilson...

In system formed by transversal waves preferably (like the foam) the subtle effects of environment reference frame will become the more pronounced, the higher is energy wavelength. For example, the transversal waves at water surface (so called capillary waves) are independent to the underwater reference frame just for the wavelength bellow 1.73 centimeters (0.68 inch). By the similar way, the light speed anisotropy can be easily observed by the Doppler shift of microwave anisotropy (compare the results of WMAP and COBE probes). Just the very schematic and zealot stance can ignore such results...

4Dguy
Papmancur,

QUOTE
Where did you get that? It isn't true.
Light speed is fully isotropic, there are a few experiments that confirm it.
Are you talking about "closing speed"? What exactly are you referring to?

Einstein said you could use synchronized atomic clocks as interchangeable with the speed of light determination. Driving with multiple synchronized atomic clocks light takes 14 nano seconds longer to travel from SanFrancisco to New York than it does to travel from New York to SanFrancisco(the same correction done for gps). If you go from New York to SanFrancisco and back they are resynchronized. That is why the MM experiments had a null result. No matter which way you go on the earth (on the flat) when you return the clocks will be synchronized. You have to understand the limitations of the MM experiments they were looking for a static aether. Although the aether that Zephir and I believe in are different neither of us believe in a static aether. Our aethers are of a fluid nature. Zephir I do not mean to speak on your aether but as I understand yours it is also more of a fluid aether. Correct me if I am wrong.
Zephir
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 28 2006, 04:52 PM)
Our aethers are of a fluid nature.

I suppose, the Aether behaves rather like elastic jelly or urethane foam, at least the light wave spreading and the electromagnetic forces are influenced by the chain of mutual torsion deformations, which are propagating at the distance.

Nevertheless, it doesn't mean, the Universe as such cannot be formed by fluid matter like the interior of neutron star (i.e. the boson condensate). The another question is, how to detect such behavior, as I don't expect, the large distance motion will influence the observable matter distribution too much. We'll need a long-term and long distance astronomical observations to detect it.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 28 2006, 01:52 PM)
Papmancur,

Einstein said you could use synchronized atomic clocks as interchangeable with the speed of light determination. Driving with multiple synchronized atomic clocks light takes 14 nano seconds longer to travel from SanFrancisco to New York than it does to travel from New York to SanFrancisco(the same correction done for gps). If you go from New York to SanFrancisco and back they are resynchronized.

I see you are a little confused, you are talking about "closing speed" (Google it) in the "Sagnac effect" (Google it)

QUOTE

That is why the MM experiments had a null result.

Wrong, there is no connection and the MMX gives a null result modulo the incorrect processing of data by Dayton Miller. I would recommend Shankland and Tom Roberts analysis on this.

Here is the newest one, by Tom Roberts

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE That is why the MM experiments had a null result.

Wrong, there is no connection and the MMX gives a null result modulo the incorrect processing of data by Dayton Miller. I would recommend Shankland and Tom Roberts analysis on this.

Here is the newest one, by Tom Roberts

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf

No matter which way you go on the earth (on the flat) when you return the clocks will be synchronized. You have to understand the limitations of the MM experiments they were looking for a static aether. Although the aether that Zephir and I believe in are different neither of us believe in a static aether. Our aethers are of a fluid nature.

Doesn't matter which aether you are talking about, it doesn't exist. What really killed the aether theories is not so much MMX as it is Ives-Stilwell (Google that). I-S gave the mortal blow to the aether theories , so you and Zeph and all the other aether theorists are wasting your time.
4Dguy
Pupamancur,

I could not agree with you more about your sight and the signac affect. But once again have you ever heard of limitations in your experiments. The Aether of the MM experiment and Miller experiment goes back to Aristotle and his obsession with the mathematical static aether. This experimentation is biased on a static non moving aether that the earth is moving through and this is only what it it is valid for. What do you think it is that synchronizes electron speeds in atomic clocks? All you know at this point is that it is not an energy aether. Your understanding currently is upon observation and mathematics. Relativity is merely a system of observations backed up by mathematical formulas. You know and observe gravity but you do not know what causes gravity. The same with magnetism. You are an observer and you use mathematics to describe the effects. That is not understanding. There are too many unknowns about light and gravity to just say signac effect and say that is an explanation for why light travels faster east to west than from west to east. There are depths to this issue that if you are willing to surface skim and dismiss, it will be your loss.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 28 2006, 11:44 AM)
The Aether of the MM experiment and Miller experiment goes back to Aristotle and his obsession with the mathematical static aether.

The geocentric theory also goes back to Aristotle. It has also been experimentally proven wrong. Your point?

QUOTE
This experimentation is biased on a static non moving aether that the earth is moving through and this is only what it it is valid for. What do you think it is that synchronizes electron speeds in atomic clocks? All you know at this point is that it is not an energy aether.

Sorry, I'm apparently missing your point completely. Could you elaborate or explain in less abstract terms?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE This experimentation is biased on a static non moving aether that the earth is moving through and this is only what it it is valid for. What do you think it is that synchronizes electron speeds in atomic clocks? All you know at this point is that it is not an energy aether.

Sorry, I'm apparently missing your point completely. Could you elaborate or explain in less abstract terms?

Your understanding currently is upon observation and mathematics. Relativity is merely a system of observations backed up by mathematical formulas.

So are you proposing that understanding should NOT be based on observation and logic (since that's what math is)? Sorry, but that idea was eradicated in the Enlightenment. Relativity was actually not created based on observations, the experiments just confirmed the theory. The idea of relativity is much deeper than just a few mathematical formulas, but it is important to understand the connections between the ideas and the math.

QUOTE
You know and observe gravity but you do not know what causes gravity.

We do, actually. Google it. Or just search for it on this forum, it's been explained lots of times.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You know and observe gravity but you do not know what causes gravity.

We do, actually. Google it. Or just search for it on this forum, it's been explained lots of times.

You are an observer and you use mathematics to describe the effects. That is not understanding.

Yeah, that's why people develop theories. I agree with you that we don't know WHY the universe is as it is. If you believe in God, that makes things easier, but if you don't, it may take a little while for your questions to be answered. We don't have the technology yet to understand that, and maybe we never will. But it won't be explained anytime soon, that's for sure. There are thousands of experiments we haven't done yet, each of which will provide more information. You can't make a theory that explains everything without knowing everything first.
4Dguy

QUOTE
The geocentric theory also goes back to Aristotle. It has also been experimentally proven wrong. Your point?

OK I will try it a third time an experiment is only valid for what it was designed for. A static aether and relativity are incompatible a fluid aether is not. All the aether experiments were designed for a static aether.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The geocentric theory also goes back to Aristotle. It has also been experimentally proven wrong. Your point?

OK I will try it a third time an experiment is only valid for what it was designed for. A static aether and relativity are incompatible a fluid aether is not. All the aether experiments were designed for a static aether.

Sorry, I'm apparently missing your point completely. Could you elaborate or explain in less abstract terms?

E=MC^2 When you begin to truly understand that mass has no energy, energy has no mass and yet each are a different form of the other it will become clear.

QUOTE
So are you proposing that understanding should NOT be based on observation and logic (since that's what math is)? Sorry, but that idea was eradicated in the Enlightenment. Relativity was actually not created based on observations, the experiments just confirmed the theory. The idea of relativity is much deeper than just a few mathematical formulas, but it is important to understand the connections between the ideas and the math.

Lets take the big bang for example. Some day it may be seen in the same light as the early sailors believing they were going to fall off the earth. No matter how you use the mathematics to show how old the universe is or how wide it is that is just mathematics based on an idea not necessarily understanding. There is no mechanism for a big bang.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE So are you proposing that understanding should NOT be based on observation and logic (since that's what math is)? Sorry, but that idea was eradicated in the Enlightenment. Relativity was actually not created based on observations, the experiments just confirmed the theory. The idea of relativity is much deeper than just a few mathematical formulas, but it is important to understand the connections between the ideas and the math.

Lets take the big bang for example. Some day it may be seen in the same light as the early sailors believing they were going to fall off the earth. No matter how you use the mathematics to show how old the universe is or how wide it is that is just mathematics based on an idea not necessarily understanding. There is no mechanism for a big bang.

We do, actually. Google it. Or just search for it on this forum, it's been explained lots of times.

I googled gravity allot of formulas allot of observation but as I suspected no true understanding behind the cause of gravity. If you accept attraction between bodies of mass as the cause of gravity or gravitons that have not been detected yet or gravitational fields from nothing as an explanation.

QUOTE
Yeah, that's why people develop theories. I agree with you that we don't know WHY the universe is as it is. If you believe in God, that makes things easier, but if you don't, it may take a little while for your questions to be answered. We don't have the technology yet to understand that, and maybe we never will. But it won't be explained anytime soon, that's for sure. There are thousands of experiments we haven't done yet, each of which will provide more information. You can't make a theory that explains everything without knowing everything first.

Whether or not there is an aether do you really believe you have enough information and understanding to be positive there is no aether?
Pupamancur
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 29 2006, 08:57 PM)

OK I will try it a third time an experiment is only valid for what it was designed for.  A static aether and relativity are incompatible a fluid aether is not. All the aether experiments were designed for a static aether.

1. Can you define the properties of "static" aether?
2.Can you define the properties of "fluid" aether?
3. What experimental and/or theoretical proof do you have that ""fluid aether is not incompatible with relativity"?

QUOTE
E=MC^2  When you begin to truly understand that mass has no energy, energy has no mass and yet each are a different form of the other it will become clear.

You are not only quoting an obsolete and incomplete formula (try E^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2) but you are also at odds with mainstream physics.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 29 2006, 04:57 PM)
Lets take the big  bang for example. Some day it may be seen in the same light as the early sailors believing they were going to fall off the earth. No matter how you use the mathematics to show how old the universe is or how wide it is that is just mathematics based on an idea not necessarily understanding. There is no mechanism  for a big bang.

Actually there are many theories as to the mechanism for the big bang. From Wikipedia:
While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest universe, when inflation is hypothesized to have occurred. There may also be parts of the universe well beyond what can be observed in principle. In the case of inflation this is required: exponential expansion has pushed large regions of space beyond our observable horizon. It may be possible to deduce what happened when we better understand physics at very high energy scales. Speculations about this often involve theories of quantum gravitation.

Some proposals are:

models including the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite;
brane cosmology models, including brane inflation, in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically.
chaotic inflation, in which inflation starts from random initial conditions for the universe.
Some of these scenarios are qualitatively compatible with one another. Each entails untested hypotheses.

QUOTE
I googled gravity allot of formulas allot of observation but as I suspected no true understanding behind the cause of gravity. If you accept attraction between bodies of mass as the cause of gravity or gravitons that have not been detected yet or gravitational fields from nothing as an explanation.

The curvature of space-time. Try looking up "General Relativity".

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I googled gravity allot of formulas allot of observation but as I suspected no true understanding behind the cause of gravity. If you accept attraction between bodies of mass as the cause of gravity or gravitons that have not been detected yet or gravitational fields from nothing as an explanation.

The curvature of space-time. Try looking up "General Relativity".

Whether or not there is an aether do you really believe you have enough information and understanding to be positive there is no aether?

Of course not. That is completely beside the point.
4Dguy

[/QUOTE] Can you define the properties of "static" aether?
QUOTE

As I understand it ,as unlikely as it sounds, its like a geometric structure that does not move and bodies of mass flow through it.

Can you define the properties of "fluid" aether?
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE As I understand it ,as unlikely as it sounds, its like a geometric structure that does not move and bodies of mass flow through it.
Can you define the properties of "fluid" aether?

This is not the total properties of it, this is more for visualization. Consider for a moment that the universe is in a super critical fluid ocean and that fluid ocean is energy. This energy interacts with mass to give mass its properties such as electron movement, gravity and magnetism. Can I describe the how? No.

What experimental and/or theoretical proof do you have that ""fluid aether is not incompatible with relativity"?
QUOTE

Lets look at E=MC^2 and lets say mass does not absorb any energy (although it does) from E. Now the available energy for M is 0------->100 (100 representing light speed) E represents space time energy. Of course we know that mass can not go the speed of light because it would create mass with not enough energy left to over come the mass build up. Anyway lets say the aether energy at rest is 100 % now lets say a rocket approaches the speed of light to75%. There is only 25% available energy left to move the electrons in the rocket so if there is an atomic clock on board that clock would only run at 25% compared to that of the clock that is at the hypothetical 0. I say hypothetical 0 because mass and acceleration have an overlapping time dilation. I call it a dilation because mass curves space time by slowing the aether energy and mass is attracted to the lowest energy state. Mass is attracted to the lowest energy state because mass does not have any energy in and of itself.

You are not only quoting an obsolete and incomplete formula (try E^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2) but you are also at odds with mainstream physics.
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Lets look at E=MC^2 and lets say mass does not absorb any energy (although it does) from E. Now the available energy for M is 0------->100 (100 representing light speed) E represents space time energy. Of course we know that mass can not go the speed of light because it would create mass with not enough energy left to over come the mass build up. Anyway lets say the aether energy at rest is 100 % now lets say a rocket approaches the speed of light to75%. There is only 25% available energy left to move the electrons in the rocket so if there is an atomic clock on board that clock would only run at 25% compared to that of the clock that is at the hypothetical 0. I say hypothetical 0 because mass and acceleration have an overlapping time dilation. I call it a dilation because mass curves space time by slowing the aether energy and mass is attracted to the lowest energy state. Mass is attracted to the lowest energy state because mass does not have any energy in and of itself.
You are not only quoting an obsolete and incomplete formula (try E^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2) but you are also at odds with mainstream physics.

That would not be the representation of my formula! It seems to me main stream physics is at odds to answering questions that should have been realized by now.

The curvature of space-time. Try looking up "General Relativity".
QUOTE

Thank you but I am quite familiar with each of the terms. If you do not believe in a sub structure of some type (I call it an aether) what is being curved in the curvature of space time?

Of course not. That is completely beside the point.[QUOTE]

You claim there is no aether ,you claim you do not have enough information to make a judgment on the existence or non existence of an aether and you claim that is completely beside the point?
4Dguy
Sorry the quotes are working backwards for me.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 30 2006, 03:47 AM)

[/QUOTE] Can you define the properties of "static" aether?Can you define the properties of "fluid" aether?What experimental and/or theoretical proof do you have that ""fluid aether is not incompatible with relativity"?You are not only quoting an obsolete and incomplete formula (try E^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2) but you are also at odds with mainstream physics.The curvature of space-time. Try looking up "General Relativity".Of course not. That is completely beside the point.[QUOTE]

You claim there is no aether ,you claim you do not have enough information to make a judgment on the existence or non existence of an aether and you claim that is completely beside the point?

Try fixing your post, it is incomprehensible.
fivedoughnut
Why do clocks slow down?.....easy, they either require new batteries or need winding up!.....now give me a hard one (said the nun to the bishop)
4Dguy
papamancur,

like I said my computer was dooing weird things with the quotes that never happened before.

[/QUOTE] Can you define the properties of "static" aether?Can you define the properties of "fluid" aether?What experimental and/or theoretical proof do you have that ""fluid aether is not incompatible with relativity"?You are not only quoting an obsolete and incomplete formula (try E^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2) but you are also at odds with mainstream physics.The curvature of space-time. Try looking up "General Relativity".Of course not. That is completely beside the point.[QUOTE]

I can not fix this I did not say it.

[QUOTE]You claim there is no aether ,you claim you do not have enough information to make a judgment on the existence or non existence of an aether and you claim that is completely beside the point?[/QUOTE]

This is the only part of that, I wrote.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 30 2006, 01:21 PM)
papamancur,

like I said my computer was dooing weird things with the quotes that never happened before.

[/QUOTE] Can you define the properties of "static" aether?Can you define the properties of "fluid" aether?What experimental and/or theoretical proof do you have that ""fluid aether is not incompatible with relativity"?You are not only quoting an obsolete and incomplete formula (try E^2=(mc)^2+(pc)^2) but you are also at odds with mainstream physics.The curvature of space-time. Try looking up "General Relativity".Of course not. That is completely beside the point.

This is the only part of that, I wrote.

Zephir
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 30 2006, 04:21 PM)
..I said my computer was doing weird things with the quotes that never happened before....

Hi, 4Dguy

your posts are quite readable, just try to start you comments by the QUOTE tag without backslash and everything will be OK.
Farsight
I read a book a while back by Julian Barbour, called "The End of Time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour
http://www.thymos.com/mind/barbour.html

Basically, it's saying that all there really is, is space and motion. Time is a product of our perception, rather like colour. I didn't think too much of it at the time. In fact, I thought "yeah yeah". However it's sunk in more and more. You mull it over, you find it fits this and it fits that, and after a while it starts to sound like better physics. Then you start noticing the language you've always used. Like "clocks go faster". And you find yourself saying but they aren't going anywhere.

It's getting a little scarey.

Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Sep 30 2006, 09:35 PM)
Time is a product of our perception, rather like colour.

Of course, by the same way like the energy or charge quantities... But the subjective perceiving of time depends on the wavelength of energy radiation, which we are using for orientation in space.

From this point of view, the space is real by the same way, like the time and such stance is solely reciprocal and the space can be perceived by the time (intervals) easily. If you're crossing some large room at the dark, you can use the stopwatches for safe navigating through such room. The bat (flitter-mouse) uses the time concept for navigation in space heavily, so we can say, here's no space for bats, just the permanent time intervals measurement and no space concept is necessary for description of their motion - just the time.
Farsight
Here's the sort of thing you start getting into Zephir: You know that bat? Imagine if it had a super high frequency squeak. And super ears connected to super brain. How do you think it might perceive the returning echoes? In colour. But wait a minute. The colour is just the frequency of the sound waves. Just like the colours we see are the frequency of light waves. Yep, it's easy to imagine colour as a mere perception thing. What's really out there is the frequency. Hah. Easy peasy. But wait a minute. We're talking about light. Propagating at c. And we know for something going at this speed, no time passes at all. None. Nil. Zip. Zero. There isn't any. And so there isn't any speed. And there isn't any frequency either. Scarey scarey scarey. Why do clocks go slower? Nervous laughter.

Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 1 2006, 02:12 AM)
How do you think it might perceive the returning echoes? In color...

The bat doesn't estimate the distance by using of sound frequency in general, but by time intervals during short 5 msec pulses of FM ultrasound, similar to chattering and flicking (the real sound sample is linked below the waveform)...

So I can really say, the bat perceives the distances just by some abstract time intervals...
4Dguy
Farsight,

I suspect that time never stops, everyone everywhere is always in the present. As our mass approaches the speed of light our metabolism and electrons slow down but we remain in the present. If all the electrons in your body were frozen in place no time would pass for you but you would remain in the present. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second that is just the limit of energy there is available in space time and how we measure it is with a time interval.
ronterry
For Einstein,the ether was/is that property of space that facilitates the propagation of electromagnetic waves. What this "property"is,is a question still looking for an answer. Who knows,it may facilitate other things.
Zephir
QUOTE (ronterry+Oct 1 2006, 11:18 AM)
For Einstein,the ether was/is that property of space that facilitates the propagation of electromagnetic waves. What this "property"is,is a question still looking for an answer.

The transversal wave light spreading suggests, the Aether is formed by foam, most of modern theories have founded this model intuitively, too (Heim's metrons, LQG spin networks, M-theory branes). This foamy structure follows from Lagrangian analysis of dense elastic environment and it has an analogy in supercritical vapor condensation and other physical processes. Furthermore, we're expecting the foamy structure of black hole interior and some theories suggests, the Universe is formed by the black hole interior.

So the situation is in fact a quite simple and I suppose, the mainstream science will test this model at the first line, despite of its name proposed by some anonymous on the Internet. Any other model needs a special reasoning. In fact, the estimation of material structure of vacuum is pretty easy task - just the prejudices about Aether concept prohibits us to think about it by such straightforward and natural way.

Therefore the first task is to realize, the M-M experiments and others supports this model fully, they're not in contradiction with Aether hypothesis. I suppose, the discussions about Aether would appear a quite funny and trivial for our kids and grandchildren. This illustrates clearly, how important is the proper philosophy in science. No math model, just way of thinking. With incorrect philosophy, the development of math model becomes counterintuitive and incredibly work consuming. Compare the Ptolemaic epicycles and Copernicus heliocentric model.

The correct philosophy can enable us to save a lot of money, so it's not so academical discussion, as it can appear at the first sight. The science really wastes our money by ignoring of public advices. We have a lotta different problems for solving, not just the Aether concept.
ronterry
QUOTE
Why do clocks slow down?
Another interesting read on this topic is http://qem.ee.edu.tw/ch6.htm
4Dguy

An interesting thought came to me about the big bang when I started to think about clock speeds. The Big Bang seems more a following of faith than a following of science. Consider what we really know about the mechanism of a big bang to create mass, nothing. We already know where mass comes from and can go back to, energy. Why would there be two sources for the creation of matter. The big bangs would be the creations of suns and fission and fusion would be the exchange of mass to energy and energy to mass. Now lets look at the expansion of the universe by the red shift. Quite possibly the universe is not expanding. How dare I make such a statement you ask. It all has to do with the speed of atomic clocks and the two voyagers as they left our solar system. An atomic clock as it gains altitude from the surface of the earth increases in speed. If you could tunnel to the center of the earth( if it were not molten) and be in free fall the clock would run slower than on any other place on the earth. Out in space it would run faster but outside of the solar system it would run faster yet and outside the galaxies they would run their fastest. Light is created in a slow energy environment and moves into a faster energy environment. Since we live on the edge of a galaxy we see it in its red shifted state. I believe the red shift is a optical effect rather than an expanding universe. I am inferring this from the voyagers when they left the solar system they both speed up and changed directions suggesting our galaxy is a rotating disk with a lower energy inside the disk than outside the disk.
amrit
clock does not measure time
clock movement itself is time
the speed of clock movement depends on the strength of gravity
4Dguy
Amrit,

What is gravity?
amrit
gravity is a physical property of the space to shrink
based on the quantum structure of the space itself
space is build up out of quanta of space that have a certain density which depends on the amount of matter into given volume of space
more matter more space is dense stronger gravity
gravity does not act between material objects it acts into space into which exist material objects
gravity is a non propagating force
it does not move into space as light do
GW are math speculation only
no existence into material universe
bigger density of space stronger its curvature
slower speed of time (speed of material change) and so also clocks speed
4Dguy
Amrit,

QUOTE
gravity is a physical property of the space to shrink

Just the opposite may be true. It appears as if mass dilates space rather than condenses it. You are an astronomer look at the lensing effect when we look at galaxies behind one another through a telescope. The view is convex not concave.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE gravity is a physical property of the space to shrink

Just the opposite may be true. It appears as if mass dilates space rather than condenses it. You are an astronomer look at the lensing effect when we look at galaxies behind one another through a telescope. The view is convex not concave.

based on the quantum structure of the space itself

I thought quantum structure only pertained to mass. But I would agree Space is made up of something.

QUOTE
space is build up out of quanta of space that have a certain density which depends on the amount of matter into given volume of space

Or how close that matter is to space.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE space is build up out of quanta of space that have a certain density which depends on the amount of matter into given volume of space

Or how close that matter is to space.

more matter more space is dense stronger gravity

The less space is dense the stronger gravity becomes. Back to the lensing effect.

QUOTE
gravity does not act between material objects it acts into space into which exist material objects

Yes it is the mass of two or more objects creating a lower energy environment that attracts each other (entropy).

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE gravity does not act between material objects it acts into space into which exist material objects

Yes it is the mass of two or more objects creating a lower energy environment that attracts each other (entropy).

gravity is a non propagating force

Other than it lowers the space time energy.

QUOTE
it does not move into space as light do

No, its more of a dilation.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE it does not move into space as light do

No, its more of a dilation.

GW are math speculation only

QUOTE
no existence into material universe

Correct again.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE no existence into material universe

Correct again.

bigger density of space stronger its curvature

Backwards again.

QUOTE
slower speed of time (speed of material change) and so also clocks speed

Yes we are always in the present no matter how fast or slow our clocks move. Interestingly enough light and time are always confounded in space so the speed of light is always measured to be the same in a vacuum where ever you are.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 10 2006, 10:38 PM)
The less space is dense the stronger gravity becomes. Back to the lensing effect.

And how does that work? Like how does less dense space cause gravity?

QUOTE
Yes we are always in the present no matter how fast or slow our clocks move. Interestingly enough light and time are always confounded in space so the speed of light is always measured to be the same in a vacuum where ever you are.

What does it mean for light and time to be "confounded" in space and how does that cause the speed of light to be measured the same wherever you are??
Farsight
Vanadesse, I think it goes something like this:

QUOTE
Vanadesse: I have measured the speed of light at 300,000,000 m/s.

Farsight: Good stuff. Now, what did you use to measure the distance?

Vanadesse: My metre ruler. It's absolutely precise.

Farsight: Uh huh. And what did you use to measure the time?

Vanadesse: My atomic clock. It's the finest known to science.

"The metre... is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second..."

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to..."

Both distance and time are defined using light. So you always measure the speed of light the same. It gets real interesting because of where it takes you - is time fundamental, or is it a matter of perception or a derived effect of motion like colour/heat/sound/pressure. I'll start a thread on it sometime. The trouble is people start getting abusive and crying "crackpot", when maybe the real crackpots are the people talking about Time Travel. I'm perfectly serious about this. See "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/barbour.html
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 11 2006, 09:12 AM)
Vanadesse, I think it goes something like this:

"The metre... is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second..."

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to..."

Both distance and time are defined using light. So you always measure the speed of light the same. It gets real interesting because of where it takes you - is time fundamental, or is it a matter of perception or a derived effect of motion like colour/heat/sound/pressure. I'll start a thread on it sometime. The trouble is people start getting abusive and crying "crackpot", when maybe the real crackpots are the people  talking about Time Travel. I'm perfectly serious about this. See "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/barbour.html

Wow... no offense but that really was a kind of moronic post. No s*** the meter can be defined in relation to light. It could also be defined in relation to the speed of sound, or the speed of a mercedes on a highway, or whatever else you want. Obviously the unit of length that is the meter was defined before the speed of light was proved to be constant. Otherwise how would they be able to measure the speed in the first place? No one's THAT stupid. The same thing goes for measuring time. The meter can be described in relation to the speed of light BECAUSE of the constancy of light speed, which they set in effect AFTER they found light speed to be constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
4Dguy

QUOTE
What does it mean for light and time to be "confounded" in space and how does that cause the speed of light to be measured the same wherever you are??

Let me address this statement first. Your in a ship going 75% of the speed of light. Its a very large ship and a large portion of it is made up of a vacuum. If you measure the speed of light in that vacuum with an atomic clock you will measure the speed to be 186,000 miles per second. Now the atomic clock is possibly only ticking at 25% of what a synchronized atomic clock back on earth may be ticking. Now each of the measurements will be the same in there own frame but the speed of light from a (proposed but nonexistent) universal frame would be different.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE What does it mean for light and time to be "confounded" in space and how does that cause the speed of light to be measured the same wherever you are??

Let me address this statement first. Your in a ship going 75% of the speed of light. Its a very large ship and a large portion of it is made up of a vacuum. If you measure the speed of light in that vacuum with an atomic clock you will measure the speed to be 186,000 miles per second. Now the atomic clock is possibly only ticking at 25% of what a synchronized atomic clock back on earth may be ticking. Now each of the measurements will be the same in there own frame but the speed of light from a (proposed but nonexistent) universal frame would be different.

And how does that work? Like how does less dense space cause gravity?

Space time energy. E=MC^2 if you will notice there is no energy in the equation for mass. They are on opposite sides of the equation. Quite possibly all energy is derived from space time energy. Kind of like mass is a conductor and a accumulator to release and remove energy from space time energy. Now how does it cause gravity. Mass dilates space time energy, for proof look at the convex halo's around galaxies. I suspect mass reduces the energy from space time energy to drive the electrons and power the protons of atoms. When this happens it causes a dilation of the energy and the energy becomes reduced. This reduced energy creates a energy vacuum in space that acts as a monopole unless there is another object in its effected area. The energy vacuum between two objects cause the attraction between them (gravity).

Farsight
Hmmn. Not sure about that energy thing 4Dguy. I have some pretty heavy thoughts about energy. Maybe we could talk at length on another thread?

Vanadesse: it's not a question of equating a metre or a second to the motion of light like you would with sound. The motion of light defines the metre and defines the second. That's what they are.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 12 2006, 05:13 AM)
Vanadesse: it's not a question of equating a metre or a second to the motion of light like you would with sound. The motion of light defines the metre and defines the second. That's what they are.

But that's not what they were when the speed of light was measured. Like I said before, no one's that stupid.

QUOTE (4Dguy+)
E=MC^2 if you will notice there is no energy in the equation for mass. They are on opposite sides of the equation.

What "equation for mass"? Do you mean e=mc^2? If so, then the equation m=e/c^2 DOES contain energy in the equation. It's the "e". I think I'm misunderstanding you...
bara

Energy is being reduced by stars and mass is being created fusion is greater then fission in stars (thats why they grow). Time in the universe is possibly slowing down. Amrit will say its at equilibrium due to the mass to energy from black holes possibly. I believe the red shift is because the speed of time is increased between galaxies. It makes it appear as if the universe is expanding.

I am intrigued at the last two sentences. Can you please tell me where you got this idea? Are there published sources perhaps? If your own idea, can you please explain in a little more detail what you have in mind? Then, one last question - if you can think of a single point or discovery that might do the greatest harm to your idea, would you be willing to share it?

(none of my questions are trick questions or intended to trap in any way. I am giving some personal thought to cosmology and your idea struck me as unusual enough to ask for more information)

Thanks
bara

Energy is being reduced by stars and mass is being created fusion is greater then fission in stars (thats why they grow). Time in the universe is possibly slowing down. Amrit will say its at equilibrium due to the mass to energy from black holes possibly. I believe the red shift is because the speed of time is increased between galaxies. It makes it appear as if the universe is expanding.

I am intrigued at the last two sentences. Can you please tell me where you got this idea? Are there published sources perhaps? If your own idea, can you please explain in a little more detail what you have in mind? Then, one last question - if you can think of a single point or discovery that might do the greatest harm to your idea, would you be willing to share it?

(none of my questions are trick questions or intended to trap in any way. I am giving some personal thought to cosmology and your idea struck me as unusual enough to ask for more information)

Thanks
4Dguy
Bara,

There is no one that I know of with the same ideas as I have about the universe. And please by all means trick me thats the best way to learn. The best evidence I have that the vacuum between galaxies have speed up time is the voyagers that left our solar system. Both voyagers that left our solar system changed directions and speed up. Its been my opinion that our solar system is kind of like a circular spinning disk of space time energy, that has a lower time potential inside the disk than outside of the disk. Similarly outside of our spinning galaxy the space time energy is also higher. You can see the threshold through a telescope and astronomers use this phenomenon as a lens to view galaxies behind other galaxies. Now if this is true then light is produced in a slow space time (near the center of galaxies) and moves into a fast space time giving the illusion of an expanding universe through the redshift as it appears to us. If we lived in the center of our galaxy light from other galaxies would not appear to be red shifted.
I have more evidence but do not have time to go into it right now.

Vanadesse and Farsight I will get back to you soon. Please forgive me work comes first.
4Dguy
Bara,

The greatest harm to my idea is that there is no such thing as space time energy. But if that were true then atomic clocks could not be synchronized.

Vanadesse- This is going to go against everything you have ever been taught, everything you have ever read and when you read this the first thing you are going to think is I am making a bigger moronic post than Farsight (although farsight's post was far from moronic). I believe he has a deeper understanding into the complexities of time. Now for your entertainment my (moronic) statement mass has no energy in and of itself. Mass is just a conduit for space time energy. e=mc^2 or m=e/c^2 mass and energy are always separate. Mass causes resistance to space time energy and absorbs the energy from it. In that way mass becomes a conduit. I am sure this is too many steps for you to take at one time. But just like the person that cannot see the Forrest for the trees, until we take this leap we are going to be stuck in the nowhere land of multiple dimensions and questionable quantum physics.
Farsight
Vanadesse: I started a new thread called "Time Explained" to... explain this better. I hope you find it interesting.
amrit
4d guy
there is no such a thing as space-time energy

we can talk only about energy of the space
4Dguy
Amrit,

While that is true we also assign a cycle time to that energy, that we label as time (like it or not). While time changes for each different energy level the associated speed of light changes with it. So our measurement is always adjusted for each frame that we are in. So cycle time is an integral part of space energy, although always confounded with the speed of light.
amrit
nonsense
time is not energy
time is material change
4Dguy
Amrit,

Material change is how we measure time. Energy is what causes material change. Time is energy. Space time energy. Where is the nonsense?
Farsight
Slippery stuff is energy, 4Dguy. Like most things. Let's have a thread on it. If you give me a couple of days I'll do an ENERGY EXPLAINED. It might not be perfect but it'll hold water eough to float a bit, get us off the ground so to speak.
4Dguy
Farsight,

That will be a most interesting topic!
Zephir
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 18 2006, 02:35 AM)
.....If you give me a couple of days I'll do an ENERGY EXPLAINED....

If you'll read my AWT related posts, you can found the energy explanation with (nearly) no energy expended...
Of course, the private opinion is always preferred, because it streamlines the evolution of another opinions.¨
It's not so important to be first (..after all, who decides this in sufficiently large system???) - but independent in thinking.
amrit
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 17 2006, 09:24 PM)
Amrit,

Material change is how we measure time. Energy is what causes material change. Time is energy. Space time energy. Where is the nonsense?

E = m x cc

there is no time in this equation.
TIME IS NOT ENERGY
no book of physics exists where time would be energy
ARE YIOU INVENTING NEW PHYSICS here ?

TIME IS MATERIAL CHANGE
4Dguy
Amrit,

Oh I see it now Material change like the force the earth has on a Falling object. 32 feet per second per second. 32 feet with an equal distance 64 feet and another equal distance 96 feet. While distance can be interchanged with time, c^2 time is implied. Are you trying to rewrite physics books without time?
Turanyanin
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 18 2006, 11:39 PM)
Are you trying to rewrite physics books without time?

If we use Newton's

dp/dt = F

(BTW, it is "relativistic" from the very beginning assuming m = f(v,r...) )

then we must accept some kind of "time concept". In this case it is Galilei-like mechanical time which in final is sort of "motion" itself, or much better it is the dynamics of a given clock. Measuring "motion" (v, a etc.) really means COMPARING it with some other motion (or with any "process" - "ticking"). So really

TIME IS DYNAMICS of a given clock and

EVERY COSMIC SYSTEM ITSELF IS A CLOCK.

On the other hand it is quite possible to begin with "timeless" mechanics

dE/dr = F

keeping in mind that "motion" is only one aspect of real cosmic Dynamics. In fact c as a "value" is not a simple "kinematical" speed or even "constant" at all (that is basic misunderstanding considering TR paradigm). It is really a part of more fundamental space electrogravity constant

H = G/c^2.

Of course things are more interesting in its depth but that is a new theme.

Regards
amrit
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 18 2006, 11:39 PM)
Amrit,

Oh I see it now Material change like the force the earth has on a Falling object. 32 feet per second per second. 32 feet with an equal distance 64 feet and another equal distance 96 feet. While distance can be interchanged with time, c^2 time is implied. Are you trying to rewrite physics books without time?

no time is not ilusion, time is motion
with clocks we measure duration of motion
time is real time is phyisical but time is not energy
TIME IS NOT ENERGy
4Dguy
Amrit,

Someday when you slow your mind down a little bit and think about the synchronization of atomic clocks you will realize as I have that space energy is the synchronization of all things even time.
Farsight
I've started writing ENERGY EXPLAINED, 4Dguy. I hope it's all totally logical, with no leaps and no flaws. I think you'll be surprised by the answer. As regards amrit, I don't think he explains things, and his posts are rather poetic little quips. But I think I've worked it all through, and I find I agree with the thrust of what he says. I was saying this on another thread: the stuff up there between the stars is spacetime. It isn't space and it isn't time. That means the most fundamental measure isn't distance or time, but a combination of the two - velocity. In other words, motion. Or change if you prefer. See TIME EXPLAINED starting from page 4 for elaboration, and apologies if you have already.
4Dguy
Amrit,

Did you really say this.

QUOTE
zeph entropy increasing is energy fluctuation that runs into a-temporal space
so time is energy fluctuation and not dimension
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 19 2006, 02:25 PM)
time is motion

The time is the measure of chaos in such motion, being indirectly proportional of the periodicity of such motion. Whenever the motion becomes fully chaotic, the time stops. Furthermore, we can imagine even more general definition of time, based on the change, because the motion is just a specific case of change, the change of mass/energy density distribution, in particular. As you can see, both the halves of system illustrated bellow differs by the density of fluctuations and by the time speed consequently - nevertheless here's no obvious motion at all!

As you can see, the simple stance "time is motion" is just a very rough description of problem. The mainstream physic uses such time definition as so called thermodynamical arrow of time already, this is no my invention at all. I'm just explaining this definition of time in context of recursive waves of Aether Wave theory. From the AWT follows the time measure explicitly as a mass/energy density of Aether.

The thermodynamical definition of time isn't the only one, the most general the less. For example, I'm considering the speed of evolution as the most general measure of time, which isn't dependent on the space concept by the similar way, like the thermodynamical definition of time doesn't depend on the inertia. By such way, the matter motion throught space is just a special case of evolution.
amrit
zephir: The time is the measure of chaos in such motion, being indirectly proportional of the periodicity of such motion. Whenever the motion becomes fully chaotic, the time stops.

amrit: time is not measure, time is energy fluctuation, time is material change.
chaotic or in order, it does not change anything
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 23 2006, 11:02 AM)
..time is not measure, time is energy fluctuation, time is material change....

Each the phenomena can be quantified, so it can serve as the measure. For example, the relative intensity of random particle motion inside of spatial volume can be quantified as a temperature. The time definition of yours lacks the possibility to be quantified as the time quantity. Furthermore it's ambiguous, because you should decide, whether time is just the "energy fluctuation" or "material change".

BTW, The material change definition contradicts the atemporal space concept. When you remove all the observable bodies from the vacuum, you should expect by your definition, the time will stop too, because here's no material to change furthemore. But such situation is highly improbable - we can expect, the time flow will not be affected by the absence of some remote objects inside of Universe.

By such way, it's just the space material (i.e. Aether), which defines the time measure.
amrit
zeph regarding time you are deeply stuck in your mind

1. material change has no duration (is a-temporal as space is)
2. we give it a sense of temporality by comparing it with the clocks
3. time is a man invention to experience universe in a rational way
4. universe was never empty, circulation of energy "space-matter-space"
is permanent , no beginning

on the other side most interesting thing has happened
the whole concept of a-temporality that we publish in EJTP in 2004, 2005 in 7 articles is gone
first two years are not visible any more
you see someone a-temporality goes really in the nose
no such a think has ever happen in a history of a scientific journal
2 years of publishing are gone into a-temporal space for ever

Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 24 2006, 12:39 AM)
...time is a man invention to experience universe in a rational way...

amrit, I suppose you know the AWT by the same way, like me - so you can predict my answers without problems...

Why I should solve the concept of time just with you, I my model is obviously more general and recursive? If the time is man invention, so the space is the same product of consciousness, too. Just because we are much larger, then average wavelength of light, we are using a concept of 3D space and 1D time and not vice-versa.

Remember the bat, which is using a time intervals for estimation of space... For such blind bat just the space is "mouse invention in rational way"...

QUOTE (amrit+Oct 24 2006, 12:39 AM)
...universe was never empty, circulation of energy "space-matter-space" is permanent, no beginning...

The AWT has no problem with such insight, neverthelless such stance should be considered - and presented - as a working hypothesis, not as the fact, because we have no relevant reasoning for such assumption. Furthermore, by AWT the scope of particular paradigm is always limited, so we can expect the limit of the AWT concept, too. I suppose, here are a much more interesting things behind the Aether foam, then some boring infinite recursion.
amrit
yes it is consciousness carrying the space
but to know that to experience that you have to stop the mind
by mind stooping also time will stop
material change will run into eternity
but to experience that you have to meditate
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Oct 24 2006, 01:04 AM)
..by mind stooping also time will stop...

Amrit, the stances of yours are temporal, just because you cannot bring any causality into it, i.e. the reasoning. Just the causal evidence is matter of existence. Without reasoning your stance has no chance to survive you, face it. I can extrapolate such destiny of you theory, just because of my knowledge of mutual dependence of time and causality.

I don't think, the time will stop just because your (..or someone else..) mind stop too. Don't forget, the human mind isn't the original form of consciousness existence, it has developed in time by the same way, like all the other matter. The evolution is touchable evidence of time and history.

I suppose, the case of fluctuations diffusion is the lowest level example of causality, which defines the time and space. We are observing the random fluctuations and we can be sure, each the collision is followed by subsequent dissolution of random fluctuation and concentration leveling.

Can we reveal some more general manifestation of causality, then the diffusion? This can be key to our understanding of Universe nature. The evolution can serve as the candidate of such process: the Universe is condensing and dissolving periodically, thus obtaining the opportunity to evolve. The evolution can be considered as the sequence of causality tests. Just the most rational/causal system survives for next generation. The rate of generations cannot be too long or short with respect of maximal speed of evolution.

By such a way, the evolution defines/auto-adjusts its own time measure. All these tiny volatile fluctuations of Aether doesn't move, in fact - they're just evolving like tiny creatures!

For understanding of matter evolution by AWT is very important the priciple of least action: the ratio of kinetic and potential energy of system is always choosen by such way, the intensity of energy transfer will be maximized and the Lagrangian minimized. By incorporating the evolution concept we can generalize such insight by the following way: "the ratio of chaos (entropy) and negentropy (order) in system is always choosen by such way, the speed of evolution remains maximized".
amrit
zeph when mind stops material change run on
just you become aware material change run into a-temporal space
4Dguy
Amrit,

Space is not independent of time it is the fundamental substance of time. Mass interferes with that substance and slows it down. All of mass energy comes from space energy. Mass is just a conduit for energy and has none of its own.
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.