Aether and a matter of time!!!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by dav57, Sep 2, 2003.

  1. dav57 Extraordinary Thinker Thingy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    621
    In my opinion, a general paradigm shift is far overdue! The M& M experiment has only established the non-existence of an aether wind moving relative to the earth but has not and cannot disprove the existence of an aether.

    Einstein worked his theories around current observations and experimental results and performed some algebraic manipulation to produce a model with mathematical equations that fit well and work within the universe, as we understand it now. But Einstein’s theories, along with the math that back it up, are generally very difficult to follow and most people struggle to keep up!

    There is an enormous peer pressure that almost forces most students to follow the orthodox textbook physics that is taught today. Most people are happy to achieve their PHD and it would be unquestionable for them to challenge any alternative theories. Those that do are ridiculed and often face a barrage of insults, put-downs, humiliation and resounding verbal thrashings! All knowledge has been build upon the shoulders of those people who have met the challenge and had the nerve to question the science of their era. They are the ones that have brought us to this point in time and are responsible for what we have achieved to date. We MUST continue to question the correctness of current theories regardless of whether observations and experimental results appear to fit the theory!

    Our understanding of the universe has not matured to a point that we understand the mechanics of the propagation of light let alone unifying gravity with that of quantum mechanics! We don’t even understand how or why gravity works and that I think says it all !!! And, therefore, nobody is in a position to reject an aether theory at present. Evidence can easily be manipulated to bring about a different theory / outcome and if you are prepared to backtrack and re-think the current stance, there ARE alternative possibilities that would fit an aether model.

    It appears that Einstein’s theory of relativity is very similar to that of religious beliefs in that people are prepared to accept it’s validity based on having read and accepted what is preached to them. Without stepping into religious grounds, I would like to suggest that the vast population of Earth-dwellers are prepared to accept the existence of a God without having been presented with one single shred of evidence. So with a little more evidence to support relativity, it’s hardly surprising to see a huge amount of followers in this arena! Most are perfectly willing to accept the current theories without delving too deeply, and most would have a hard time in attempting to convince a believer into becoming a non-believer!

    Einstein has us believe that the speed of light is invariant and that time is the variable within the equations. But just because we measure the speed of light as a constant doesn’t mean to say that it IS a constant - it just looks that way. And the assumption that objects change in length in reality as they increase in speed relative to an observer is nothing short of an illusion and a fudge factor within the equations. Yes, I agree that they APPEAR to look shorter due to the finite speed of light, but NO, they don’t actually reduce in length in reality! It is perfectly feasible for time to be the invariant and so let me explain and it should get you thinking…

    How can time possibly be invariant? That is impossible, time doesn’t even exist! Time is nothing more than a relationship between separate events, which happen in a physical world, and is only ever measurable using something physical to measure with and can only be measured if there is something physical to measure! Time is a non-physical entity and is nothing more than a tool for us humans to use. Yes, we can perceive the passing of time and we have clocks that show us the time but in reality it is the mechanical functions of the clocks that we observe and NOT the time. I’m afraid guys, it’s all in your heads!

    Time does not slow down or speed up. Period! However, it is perfectly acceptable to assume that the physical interactions of sub-atomic particles, atoms themselves, molecules and possibly even life could be affected by variations within a gravitational field. Ponder the following:

    Imagine for one moment that Einstein was wrong, his equations are right but his hypothesis was wrong. Now imagine an aether permeating throughout space and filling every corner. The aether is created by the presence of matter and it has the geometric properties that make it denser within the approximity of a large body and it’s relative density becomes gradually weaker as you move away from the body. The greater the mass the more dense the ather and the further the density permeates out into space. Now imagine this aether (for simplicity) is made of hail stones and you are travelling round the universe in a car with it’s wind screen wipers turned on. The closer you are to a body of mass, the more your wipers struggle to keep up and, therefore, slow down. You can get a similar effect by travelling very fast in open space, where your wipers will also struggle. This analogy could be applied to the atomic clock scenario whereby experimentation has apparently proven the slowing of time when, in actual fact, it could be just a purely physical phenomena where the atomic clock slows down based on physical reasons and not the bizarre assumption that time slows down!

    One can also, without too much imagination, see how gravity could operate within this model. If the aether exerts some pressure on any given mass, then a mass within the proximity would be drawn closer to it in an attempt to form one dent in the aether rather than two. Furthermore, the aether would be dragged around by the earth, which would provide the M & M experiment with a null result! Spooky!

    Light travels at a speed relative to the aether. I accept that light is always measured as c relative to an observer regardless of how fast the source or the observer is travelling, but this doesn’t make sense and there are alternative ways of describing what is ACTUALLY happening here.

    There are many paradoxes within Einstein’s model and I will describe just one:

    Take a planet A and a planet B (billions of miles apart). Planet A launches a rocket toward B at nearly the speed of light. Planet B does the same. You are standing right in the middle and observe the two rockets each travelling close to the speed of light. According to Einstein, both rockets could not possible see the other coming (which is fair enough) but the math would have us believe that one rocket relative to the other rocket is travelling no faster than the speed of light, but we KNOW that’s not true don’t we! The person in the middle KNOWS that is not true. In reality, the rockets are approaching each other at twice the speed of light and surely no amount of algebraic manipulation should convince you otherwise.

    Could it be possible for an aether to have dynamic geometrical properties that allow it to be distorted and dragged through space by the presence of moving masses that in turn forms pressure waves in the aether similar to that of sound waves? If so, and presuming that light could propagate using this aether, the wavelengths and frequencies of the light measured could be altered to give an observer false impressions.

    It has been tested experimentally that light’s wavelength decreases as it moves upward and away from the earth. This could be due to the fact that the aether particles are also decreasing in density. At the event horizon of a black hole the is a severe blue-shift of light, which could be due to the severe density of an aether. But an observer at any point would observe the same speed of light because as the wavelength goes up, the frequency goes down and visa versa. Pressure waves around moving bodies would have a similar effect. Either way, we can’t rule out endless possibilities and turn down open opportunities that lie ahead. All it takes is yet more algebraic magic to convince the masses!

    It seems to me that we must keep an open mind with regard to any possibilities of an aether existing. My model may not be true and may need tweaking. I’m sure nobody will believe it and nobody would take the time to investigate it anyway! It will take a stroke of genius to overrule the science community at this point in time but I am a firm believer that it IS just a matter of time before someone discovers and proves the existence of the aether! Furthermore, Einstein’s ridiculous assumption that time is variable will surely be put to an end!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    So, where is the math ? Please show us how you explain e.g. the detection of muons on earth using your aether theory.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    My model may not be true and may need tweaking.

    What model? Where is it?

    All I see are baseless claims and assertions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beercules Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    Anyone want to give the post a score? Using the criteria set by John Baez, of course.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,550
    dav57:

    <i>The M& M experiment has only established the non-existence of an aether wind moving relative to the earth but has not and cannot disprove the existence of an aether.</i>

    Correct. However, an aether which shared the peculiar motion of the Earth would be a strange beast indeed, and there is no reason at all to suspect that such a thing exists.

    <i>Einstein worked his theories around current observations and experimental results and performed some algebraic manipulation to produce a model with mathematical equations that fit well and work within the universe, as we understand it now. But Einstein’s theories, along with the math that back it up, are generally very difficult to follow and most people struggle to keep up!</i>

    That, in itself, is obviously no argument against the theory. It doesn't matter if some people struggle to keep up with the theory. That doesn't affect its correctness.

    <i>There is an enormous peer pressure that almost forces most students to follow the orthodox textbook physics that is taught today. Most people are happy to achieve their PHD and it would be unquestionable for them to challenge any alternative theories.</i>

    Getting a PhD requires you to advance human knowledge. Therefore, you <b>must</b> go beyond what is already known to get one. PhDs are <b>always</b> challenging existing understandings, and they are always at the boundaries of knowledge.

    <i>Our understanding of the universe has not matured to a point that we understand the mechanics of the propagation of light let alone unifying gravity with that of quantum mechanics!</i>

    I would say we understand the propagation of light very very well indeed.

    <i>We don’t even understand how or why gravity works and that I think says it all !!!</i>

    The general theory of relativity is a superb description of how gravity works.

    <i>It appears that Einstein’s theory of relativity is very similar to that of religious beliefs in that people are prepared to accept it’s validity based on having read and accepted what is preached to them.</i>

    In principle, anybody can go out and test Einstein's theory. It is supported by literally thousands of experiments, all independent.

    <i>Einstein has us believe that the speed of light is invariant and that time is the variable within the equations. But just because we measure the speed of light as a constant doesn’t mean to say that it IS a constant - it just looks that way.</i>

    How do you propose to tell the difference between the appearance and the reality?

    <i>And the assumption that objects change in length in reality as they increase in speed relative to an observer is nothing short of an illusion and a fudge factor within the equations.</i>

    No, it isn't fudged. It is a derived consequence of simple postulates.

    <i>How can time possibly be invariant? That is impossible, time doesn’t even exist! Time is nothing more than a relationship between separate events, which happen in a physical world, and is only ever measurable using something physical to measure with and can only be measured if there is something physical to measure!</i>

    Great! You and Einstein are in agreement.

    <i>Time does not slow down or speed up. Period!</i>

    Please show me at least some evidence of that.

    <i>Imagine for one moment that Einstein was wrong, his equations are right but his hypothesis was wrong.</i>

    It is difficult to imagine how a wrong hypothesis could generate correct equations, but ok.

    <i>Now imagine an aether permeating throughout space and filling every corner. The aether is created by the presence of matter and it has the geometric properties that make it denser within the approximity of a large body and it’s relative density becomes gradually weaker as you move away from the body. The greater the mass the more dense the ather and the further the density permeates out into space. Now imagine this aether (for simplicity) is made of hail stones and you are travelling round the universe in a car with it’s wind screen wipers turned on. The closer you are to a body of mass, the more your wipers struggle to keep up and, therefore, slow down. You can get a similar effect by travelling very fast in open space, where your wipers will also struggle. This analogy could be applied to the atomic clock scenario whereby experimentation has apparently proven the slowing of time when, in actual fact, it could be just a purely physical phenomena where the atomic clock slows down based on physical reasons and not the bizarre assumption that time slows down!</i>

    But you just said before that we can't distinguish real time from measurements of time because time is not a real thing. So, your windscreen wipers slowing down is the same as time slowing down, by your own argument.

    You're still agreeing with Einstein.

    <i>One can also, without too much imagination, see how gravity could operate within this model. If the aether exerts some pressure on any given mass, then a mass within the proximity would be drawn closer to it in an attempt to form one dent in the aether rather than two. Furthermore, the aether would be dragged around by the earth, which would provide the M & M experiment with a null result! Spooky!</i>

    Indeed. Show me the numerical calculations. Sounds interesting.

    <i>There are many paradoxes within Einstein’s model and I will describe just one:

    Take a planet A and a planet B (billions of miles apart). Planet A launches a rocket toward B at nearly the speed of light. Planet B does the same. You are standing right in the middle and observe the two rockets each travelling close to the speed of light. According to Einstein, both rockets could not possible see the other coming (which is fair enough) but the math would have us believe that one rocket relative to the other rocket is travelling no faster than the speed of light, but we KNOW that’s not true don’t we!</i>

    No, we don't. In fact, we know it is true.

    <i>The person in the middle KNOWS that is not true.</i>

    How?

    <i>In reality, the rockets are approaching each other at twice the speed of light and surely no amount of algebraic manipulation should convince you otherwise.</i>

    Simple algebraic manipulation of the correct velocity addition formula convinces me.

    <i>Could it be possible for an aether to have dynamic geometrical properties that allow it to be distorted and dragged through space by the presence of moving masses that in turn forms pressure waves in the aether similar to that of sound waves?</i>

    Yes. Anything is possible.

    <i>If so, and presuming that light could propagate using this aether, the wavelengths and frequencies of the light measured could be altered to give an observer false impressions.</i>

    Yes. Now you just need to do the maths to show that such an idea is consistent with all observations.

    <i>It has been tested experimentally that light’s wavelength decreases as it moves upward and away from the earth. This could be due to the fact that the aether particles are also decreasing in density.</i>

    Maybe. Show me the math.

    <i>It seems to me that we must keep an open mind with regard to any possibilities of an aether existing.</i>

    Yes. If anybody ever presents a consistent aether theory which explains all the results of relativity and more, then no doubt physicists will be all ears. Until then, however, relativity is the best theory we have.

    <i>My model may not be true and may need tweaking.</i>

    Do you have a model? Great! Show me the maths.

    <i>I’m sure nobody will believe it and nobody would take the time to investigate it anyway!</i>

    Show me. I promise I'll take a look.

    <i>It will take a stroke of genius to overrule the science community at this point in time but I am a firm believer that it IS just a matter of time before someone discovers and proves the existence of the aether!</i>

    Do you have a model or not? If you do, then surely the time is now. If not, what are you talking about? Is it all just wishful thinking?
     
  9. dav57 Extraordinary Thinker Thingy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    621
    “Correct. However, an aether which shared the peculiar motion of the Earth would be a strange beast indeed, and there is no reason at all to suspect that such a thing exists.”

    Stranger things have been postulated and accepted my freind!!


    ”That, in itself, is obviously no argument against the theory. It doesn't matter if some people struggle to keep up with the theory. That doesn't affect its correctness.”

    Religion has no valid argument and no proof, but people believe in a creator! It’s just a case of brainwash for most and an easy life by accepting what has been laid down before!


    ”Getting a PhD requires you to advance human knowledge. Therefore, you must go beyond what is already known to get one. PhDs are always challenging existing understandings, and they are always at the boundaries of knowledge.”

    Just because you go beyond what you already know doesn’t mean to say that what you are building on is correct – Newton, Aristotle, Coppernicus and Galileo spring to mind!!!!


    ”I would say we understand the propagation of light very very well indeed.”

    Correction – we THINK we understand it!


    ”The general theory of relativity is a superb description of how gravity works.”

    No it’s not! It speaks of warping space-time, space-time being a non existent imaginary nothingness! How can you warp nothing. It’s nonsense! It’s the aether that warps. Just because we can’t detect it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’m sure that if we were able to detect it we could come up with a SUPERB model to describe gravity on that basis too!


    ”In principle, anybody can go out and test Einstein's theory. It is supported by literally thousands of experiments, all independent.”

    All tests DO support the math behind Einstein’s theory – granted. But I have already explained how this could possibly be an illusion of reality.


    ”How do you propose to tell the difference between the appearance and the reality?”

    It all comes out in the wash!


    ”No, it isn't fudged. It is a derived consequence of simple postulates.”

    It’s not fudged as far as YOU see it. Yes it is derived, but there are often many derivatives which can produce the same answers mathematically and satisfy experimental observation.


    ”Great! You and Einstein are in agreement.”

    I am certainly NOT in agreement with Einstein!

    ”Time does not slow down or speed up. Period!
    Please show me at least some evidence of that.”

    If you agree that time doesn’t exist then try this equation:

    Nothing exists = nothing to measure = nothing = can’t speed up, slow down or do somersaults!


    ”It is difficult to imagine how a wrong hypothesis could generate correct equations, but ok.”

    Your right, it’s extremely difficult and very much more difficult that understanding Einsteins theory. That’s why nobody would pursue it!


    ”But you just said before that we can't distinguish real time from measurements of time because time is not a real thing. So, your windscreen wipers slowing down is the same as time slowing down, by your own argument.”

    You’re getting confused…The atoms in the atomic clock (which are physical entities) are being physically slowed down by the presense of an aether and the slowing of these atoms is variable depending on your proximity to a mass, the size of the mass and how fast you are travelling through the aether. This theory is consistent with Einstein’s observations but postulates that the slowing of the clock is due to REAL physical reasons. Same results – different theory.

    ”You're still agreeing with Einstein.”

    No I’m not!



    ”Indeed. Show me the numerical calculations. Sounds interesting.”

    Did Einstein have numerical calculation when he first hypothesised his theory? This math is far more complicated than even the three body problem. No general solution of this problem is easy to solve so I’ll pass on that one for now. You could help me if you feel up to it!


    ”No, we don't. In fact, we know it is true.”

    In Einstein’s fudged up world, maybe.


    ”How?”

    Because he just got smacked in his left ear by a rocket travelling at nearly c, and then by a stroke of bad luck he got hit in is right ear by another one! Although he has no brains left, he still knows how to put two and two together!


    ”Simple algebraic manipulation of the correct velocity addition formula convinces me.”

    Was you the one in the middle???


    ”Yes. Anything is possible.”

    Exactly!


    ”Yes. Now you just need to do the maths to show that such an idea is consistent with all observations.”

    I need time and help, just like Einstein had plenty of……



    ”Maybe. Show me the math.”

    The math has already been done. It’s the reasoning behind it that is wrong!


    ”Yes. If anybody ever presents a consistent aether theory which explains all the results of relativity and more, then no doubt physicists will be all ears. Until then, however, relativity is the best theory we have.”

    There’s a good chance of this happening in the next 50 years. There are too many unanswered questions and anomalies that are answered with yet more anomalies. The chickens will come home to roost…just as they always have!


    ”Do you have a model? Great! Show me the maths.”

    I have a model that is unique. I doubt I would ever get the help that Einstein had!


    ”Show me. I promise I'll take a look.”

    And then take the credit….


    ”Do you have a model or not? If you do, then surely the time is now. If not, what are you talking about? Is it all just wishful thinking?”

    Did Einstein never have an infant model that he worked on? Was he never a wishful thinker? Did people laugh and ridicule his theories at first? What about all the other high profile authorities of science that went before him that turned out to be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

    The problem here is that the current mathematical model works for our current experimental observations. It is, therefore, not really necessary to pursue a different analysis of a situation that already works and produces correct answers. That’s why science is skeptical about treading over old ground. But not all is as it seems – take the following example.

    You have a long straight square tunnel going from A to B. You stand at the start A, and I stand at the end B. A car C (which fits the tunnel snugly) travels very fast from A to B just as you emit a sound wave from your emitter at A. Someone in the car C has a speed of sound measuring device and so do you and I.

    Now, we all observe and agree that our measuring devices record the speed of sound as the same. We all know the length of the tunnel and therefore should be able to calculate the time for the sound to get from one end to the other. But in reality we find that the sound reaches it’s destination much quicker, and we have to derive a theory for what is going on here. I suppose you could postulate that the faster the car goes the more that time slows down and conjure up an equation that fits the observation. But we are fortunate enough in this situation to understand what the truth is….. that the sound hits the back of the car then travels through it at the speed of sound + the velocity of the car, and then on to it’s destination.

    At the end of the day,and in certain situations, the math means nothing when you’re searching for the truth!
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2003
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    dav57,

    Hi, I don't want to get you labled by taking your side

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    but yours is (in my opinion) the correct attitude, if not view.

    We should always question and challenge the status quo otherwise we will stagnate (as we have now for 100 years) fine tuning a physically unsupported hypothesis.

    There are encouraging signs of new data and insight that are starting to challenge and shift opinion.

    Keep up the good work but expect to get hammed as you have here from those dedicated to the preservation of the status quo.

    (OK guys let me have it)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Knowing to believe only half of
    what you hear is a sign of
    intelligence. Knowing which
    half to believe will make you a
    genius.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2003
  11. Beercules Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    Ok then....based on a starting score of -5

    10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". x1

    40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. x1

    10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". x1

    2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. x4

    5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. x2

    So in your first post, you got a score of 73 on the crackpot index. Good work.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Labled

    dav57,

    Damn, you got labled almost before I could put up the red flag.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Knowing to believe only half of
    what you hear is a sign of
    intelligence. Knowing which
    half to believe will make you a
    genius.
     
  13. Beercules Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    He might as well have been wearing a hat with the label.
     
  14. errandir Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    Dav,

    What your saying is nothing new (to be said), what with your localized aether with the frame dragging and the windshield wipers and the tiny little balls of hail that just love to hang around big fat heavenly bodies. Maybe you're onto something (like the most popular attempt to disregard relativity among the mathephobes). Far be it from me, or anyone else to tell you that you're wrong, and don't get me wrong, I think that you have made some very distinct and profound points (albeit, ones that, as I said, have already been made by many others). But there is a fault, to which I believe you have even admitted. You don't have any experimental evidence or even theoretical rigor yet to back it up. I'm with James; let's see some of the good stuff. Otherwise, what you've got going is an unsupported opinion, and everyone has at least one of those.
     
  15. dav57 Extraordinary Thinker Thingy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    621
    I've discussed time, now how about length:

    Einstein made some rather bold statements such as: the length of an object shortens according to an observer speeding along relative to that object. But I can see how an object may appear longer – can you explain the following?


    If we on earth were to watch a fast rocket travelling DIRECTLY away from us, then I believe it would appear to shorten. This is due to the fact that the light from the nose of the rocket takes time to reach the point where the light from the back part of the rocket needs to leave. In the time it takes the light from the front of the rocket to reach the back, the back has moved hence the rocket appears SHORTER to you and me, and I don't disagree with this.

    Now if the rocket is travelling TOWARD us I think the opposite would happen.
    The light from the back (boosters) would travel towards the front cone and find that the front has moved (toward us this time), so when the light leaves the front so that the image can be collected by our measuring equipment the whole rocket appears LONGER - it’s just a case of the properties of the geometry of the situation, and from what perspective you are looking from.

    I totaly agree that objects *appear* to change in length due to the finite speed of light and our relative speed to the object. But objects don't really shorten so it's all just part of the algebraic trickery!

    Mass doesn't increase either! It just appears to increase. How on earth can a given mass increase in reality!!!!! Where does the mass come from??? Once again this is nothing more than a fudge factor!

    Perhaps what really happens is that as a mass hurtles through space and approaches the speed of light it finds it more and more difficult to surpass a terminal velocity through the aether and does reach a critical point whereby it can't travel any faster. Imagine a submarine in water. I wonder if an analogy could be applied here. Perhaps a submarine travelling very fast through water would have apparently more mass due to the inertia of the push of the water. Hmmmm, I'll go away and think about that one!

    And as for the Muon story. Have you considered that a muon's lifespan may *actually* be increased due to it's speed through the aether? Perhaps it's physical properties are slowed just as I described atomic clocks as slowing for the same reason!!! Why does it have to be anything to do with relativity? Something strange is observed - blame it on relativity!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Then there's the Pioneer 10 & 11 problem. Why don't we understand this problem and it's causes? If our current model was correct we wouldn't have this problem. Is there an aether drag affecting the craft!!!!

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

    Dave
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2003
  16. blackholesun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    636


    Good advice. Why don't you live by it.
     
  17. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Don't you think if MacM gives it some form of approval he should get like 5 bonus points?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Beercules Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    Better make it 50.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. errandir Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    This would be true if light was propagating through some medium to reach the point of observation, but that's not what relativity says. Relativity says that light is the connectivity of events in space-time and that it is a scalar quantity.




    Do you know what geometry is?




    Due to the <i>invariant</i> speed of light.




    You probably think that it's algebraic trickery because you only truly know the algebraic treatment. There is a geometrical treatment different than the argument that you propose, and that maintains the true spirit of the theory. There is a quantity called the speed of light, c. There is also a quantity called the proper interval, ds. Now, ds = (ds)<sup>2</sup> = &eta;<sub>&mu;&nu;</sub>dx<sup>&mu;</sup>dx<sup>&nu;</sup>. Here, I have used the metric tensor of Minkowski space-time because your misgivings seemed to be rooted in the fundamental geometrical approach. This is a scalar, because it is a contraction of two second rank tensors on both indices. From this, we get some of our algebraic relationships, but, I would suggest that you do a little research on this geometrical treatment before you try to use simple-minded geometrical arguemtents to invalidate the conclusions generated by the algebra.




    Proper mass does not increase, and relativity admits that. What does increase is the temporal component of a tensor. This is what is ultimately responsible for the aparent mass increase.




    If you're suggesting a damping coefficient, then I don't think this is consistent with the operation of particle acceleration. The particles are given some series of initial impulses, but most of their travel is "free." If they were being damped, I suspect a significant discrepency in the applied energy and the energy transfered to the target (at the end of the beamline). Of course, this is somewhat out of my ass, so maybe we could both sit and think this through a bit.




    Sounds like damping, but what is "the inertia of the push of the water?"




    It may, but relativity predicts accurately and quantitatively the same result, whereas your suggestion does not.




    Can you explain the problem here; I am unfamiliar with this Pioneer 10 & 11 problem.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2003
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Funny

    Wesmorris,

    Beercules,


    Now whatever does that mean?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I did say "attitude, if not view".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Kidding.

    Stick with me Dav57 and you'll be getting straight A's.

    abased, abandoned, abash, abject, abjure, abnegation, abolish, absterge, abysmal...., and that is just the ab's.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Knowing to believe only half of
    what you hear is a sign of
    intelligence. Knowing which
    half to believe will make you a
    genius.
     
  21. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    >> However, an aether which shared the peculiar motion of the Earth would be a strange beast indeed, and there is no reason at all to suspect that such a thing exists.

    No probs, Electrodynamic Spin Gravity (see astronomy stream) explains it with isotrophic spin fields.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. dav57 Extraordinary Thinker Thingy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    621
    Ok, how about this:

    The presence of every atom, having a certain mass, creates a particle of aether. However, mass repels the aether, but the aether attracts other particles of aether.

    This would result in the aether fabric being stretched across the universe and pushing the universe apart whilst having localised gravitational effects as I described in my previous post.

    However, the more mass that gathers at a particular location, the more the aether is pushed away from the mass (were thinking black holes here). There comes a point where there is so much mass repelling the aether that the aether does not exist in the immediate vicinity of the mass and is pushed right out to the event horizon. So within the black hole, and right up to the event horizon there is no means by which light can propagate! Also, the aether would be so dense that the gravitational pull would be huge. Also, light would be blue-shifted due to the density of the aether. The bending of light would be quite severe due to the variable density of the Aether.

    I believe that recent discoveries have shown the speed of light as having decreased since the birth of the universe, and a stretching of the aether fabric would go some way to explaining this.

    And why can’t we live in a 3 dimensional universe? Why does everything have to get so complex just to satisfy the relativity theory? Perhaps it’s not so complicated as we think. I blame Einstein!

    Can anyone help me with my submarine problem? If you had two submarines, one sitting on a bed of air and easily pushed, and one under water. If you were to get them both moving very fast and at the same speed, and then tried to stop them, would it require more energy or force to stop the one under water? I can’t get my head around this one!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Why would mass create a particle of aether? :bugeye:

    As for your submarine problem, I would imagine that it would be harder to stop the one in mid-air (and harder still to stop one in a vaccuum) due to the fact that there is less resistance already working against it.

    Throw a baseball in the air, and throw it with the same force under water.
    Which would go further?
    Now throw it in space.
     

Share This Page