Jump to content

Blasphemy (Aether, really)


Handy andy
 Share

Recommended Posts

stationary to what?

 

you dont believe aether exists...so what part is exactly stationary...?

 

how can you say the spaceship (inertia, no curve or accel) is going .5c?

couldnt i argue that actually, its earth going .5c?

so if both could be going .5c...then why does the spaceship atomic clock supposedly age less.

Everything is stationary in its own frame of reference. Physics can't tell you if you're moving or something else is moving, as long as you are in an inertial frame.

defining its own speed.

but how can it be used to define others.

using a c as a measuring stick, means that everyone else is going always c.

according to c...earth is already traveling at c.

I will second the "Makes no sense" observation. Nothing with mass moves at c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is stationary in its own frame of reference. Physics can't tell you if you're moving or something else is moving, as long as you are in an inertial frame.

 

I will second the "Makes no sense" observation. Nothing with mass moves at c.

Apparently, physics can tell if you are moving, in an inertial frame, according to time dilation. Make up your mind.

 

No, really. It makes no sense.

 

If you can't understand the concept of division, I can't really help you.

If you think this is about simple 2nd grade division then I am seriously worried about you. You drastically underestimate everyone around you and conflate your own self-esteem. Your own arrogance is your weakness. You are absolutely, incredibly annoying.

Edited by quickquestion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, physics can tell if you are moving, in an inertial frame, according to time dilation. Make up your mind.

 

 

You can only tell if you are moving relative to something else.

 

 

 

If you think this is about simple 2nd grade division then I am seriously worried about you.

 

So what is it about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can only tell if you are moving relative to something else.

 

 

So what is it about?

The exact mph is irrelevant...

 

Question is...who is moving? earth or the pure inertia (no accel or curve) spaceship?

If a spaceship is moving .5c from earth in a straight line (straight not orbit nor accelerating)...

scientists say the spaceship crew should age less than earth...why?

whos to say earth is not the one going .5c, and that earth should age less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exact mph is irrelevant...

 

Question is...who is moving? earth or the pure inertia (no accel or curve) spaceship?

If a spaceship is moving .5c from earth in a straight line (straight not orbit nor accelerating)...

scientists say the spaceship crew should age less than earth...why?

whos to say earth is not the one going .5c, and that earth should age less.

 

 

Either can say they are stationary and the other is moving. Both can say the other is moving at 0.5c. Both will see the other's clock run slow (ageing less).

You can only tell if you are moving relative to something else.

 

And I wonder if this is the point of confusion: when speed is specified in terms of c, it is being described as a fraction of [the numerical value of] c not relative to light. You can't measure the speed of anything relative to light (because light is not a valid frame of reference).

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Either can say they are stationary and the other is moving. Both can say the other is moving at 0.5c. Both will see the other's clock run slow (ageing less).

unfortunately the only experiments i can think of use orbital technology. are there any experiments that show the aging of atomic clocks of moon experiments? (straight line journeys.)

because in all the science videos i watch, they tell a story about how an astronaut goes out to space, comes back to earth and everyone on earth is older but they are still young.

are these false videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unfortunately the only experiments i can think of use orbital technology. are there any experiments that show the aging of atomic clocks of moon experiments? (straight line journeys.)

 

 

This is difficult to do directly because you have to bring the clocks together again at the end (and that introduces the complication in the second part of your question, below).

 

The most obvious example is muon lifetime.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

 

 

 

because in all the science videos i watch, they tell a story about how an astronaut goes out to space, comes back to earth and everyone on earth is older but they are still young.

are these false videos.

 

These are looking at the case where one person remains on Earth and the other goes away and then returns. The situation is not symmetrical in this case. There have been some excellent breakdowns of how this works in other threads (look, in particular, for posts by Janus. He/she explains it extremely clearly - far better than I could).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the relativistic corrections the GPS clocks would be out by about 38 microseconds per day.

Light travels about 1 foot in a nanosecond, so that error amounts to something like 38,000 feet per day.

About 7 miles or 11 km per day.After a few years, you wouldn't even know what side of the planet you were on.

Since the specification for GPS is of the order of 10 metres, it would be out of specification when the error reached about 30 ns. That's about a thousandth of a day.

 

So, "completely unstable" is probably an understatement.

"Useless" might be a better word.

 

Using Astro navigation on a good day I get within a Nautical Mile, which equates to 1 second of error. On a bad day I prefer to use a GPS. The specification of 10m on land is excellent at sea. But in an open ocean I don't care where I am to within a 100NM, it is only when approaching land I start to focus. If you know what the error is could you not write some correction software to make it work, at least at sea outside shipping lanes.

 

I have have had 3 occasions at sea when the GPS satellite signals have been lost, twice in the Moray Firth, north of Aberdeen, and once in the Pacific, the satellites vanished for about an hour, do you happen to know if this normal. I checked with other boats around they had lost the signal as well, it was not instrumentation failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Using Astro navigation on a good day I get within a Nautical Mile, which equates to 1 second of error. On a bad day I prefer to use a GPS. The specification of 10m on land is excellent at sea. But in an open ocean I don't care where I am to within a 100NM, it is only when approaching land I start to focus. If you know what the error is could you not write some correction software to make it work, at least at sea outside shipping lanes.

 

I have have had 3 occasions at sea when the GPS satellite signals have been lost, twice in the Moray Firth, north of Aberdeen, and once in the Pacific, the satellites vanished for about an hour, do you happen to know if this normal. I checked with other boats around they had lost the signal as well, it was not instrumentation failure.

 

 

And are these little anecdotes supposed to be relevant?

 

 

If you know what the error is could you not write some correction software to make it work, at least at sea outside shipping lanes.

 

Yes, you need to use general relativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, physics can tell if you are moving, in an inertial frame, according to time dilation. Make up your mind.

 

If you think this is about simple 2nd grade division then I am seriously worried about you. You drastically underestimate everyone around you and conflate your own self-esteem. Your own arrogance is your weakness. You are absolutely, incredibly annoying.

 

I found this link helpful when understanding the movement of things in inertial reference frames restricted by c and an expanding universe with galaxies moving away from each other. I think it also helps define space (the aether if you like).

 

Now for the controversial bit

 

Galaxies can move away from each other at a rate in excess of 3c and are still accelerating, this is due to the expansion of space (the aether) between galaxies pushing them apart and is like an antigravity causing them to accelerate away from each other. When space contracts at it does around a black hole it causes gravity, as it does around any mass, space must contract, causing the stretching effect described in general relativity. Space(the aether) is flowing into all masses, giving the appearance of stretching space, and contracting out of existence. It flows into the planet from all directions like a gas pulling masses together in the vacuum.

 

Space is like a liquid that transfers all forces, and all things evolved from, space(the aether) is thought not to exist due to the M-M experiment. With space the aether flowing directly onto the surface of the planet the M-M experiment would detect nothing. With this definition of space (the aether) Space exists.

 

I wont mention instrumentation errors :)

 

 

And are these little anecdotes supposed to be relevant?

 

Yes, you need to use general relativity.

 

Ok no anecdotes, could I use a stopwatch and corrections tables instead of general relativity. :)

 

How often is GPS unavailable or reset? How often does it need resetting and why would it need resetting? Are there places where GPS is not available? How many types of GPS are their and how many satellites does each system have? Which system is deemed the most reliable?

LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

Edited by Handy andy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galaxies can move away from each other at a rate in excess of 3c and are still accelerating, this is due to the expansion of space (the aether) between galaxies pushing them apart and is like an antigravity causing them to accelerate away from each other.

 

 

Sigh. There is no pushing and no acceleration. (I'm sure this has been explained many times already, and the PDF you attach explains it as well.)

 

 

Space(the aether) is flowing into all masses, giving the appearance of stretching space, and contracting out of existence. It flows into the planet from all directions like a gas pulling masses together in the vacuum.

 

Much as I worry about encouraging your nonsense, you might want to read about the Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates. These can be interpreted as space flowing towards a mass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates

http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

 

 

 

 

Space is like a liquid that transfers all forces, and all things evolved from, space(the aether) is thought not to exist due to the M-M experiment.

 

It is idiotic to say that space-time doesn't exist. The Michelson Morley experiment (and others) disproved the existence of the luminiferous aether, not space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sigh. There is no pushing and no acceleration. (I'm sure this has been explained many times already, and the PDF you attach explains it as well.)

 

 

Much as I worry about encouraging your nonsense, you might want to read about the Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates. These can be interpreted as space flowing towards a mass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates

http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

 

 

 

It is idiotic to say that space-time doesn't exist. The Michelson Morley experiment (and others) disproved the existence of the luminiferous aether, not space.

No Pushing shoving pulling acceleration gravitation, they just move away quicker and quicker. Is it not wordology that you are using.

 

I don't need encouraging but thanks for the links.

 

Idiotic huh, I did not say space time does not exist. If the M-M experiment was to try and detect the movement of space causing gravity. The experiment needed rotating into the vertical and doing again.

 

Ref the aether many people ascribe different properties to it, I just state its space nothing more, and it is the understanding of space, which is the interesting stuff.

 

I am still looking into Special relativity and the links posted on the previous page. But if I get an angle to discuss instrumentation error I might pick up the subject again for amusement :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, physics can tell if you are moving, in an inertial frame, according to time dilation. Make up your mind.

 

Nope.

 

Looks exactly the same if you're not moving, as long as you're in an inertial frame.

Using Astro navigation on a good day I get within a Nautical Mile, which equates to 1 second of error.

That's angle, not time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the M-M experiment was to try and detect the movement of space causing gravity.

 

 

It wasn't trying to detect the movement of space causing gravity. That is an idiotic assertion.

 

It was an attempt to measure the luminiferous aether; i.e. the assumed medium for light. Nothing to do with space or gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.

 

Looks exactly the same if you're not moving, as long as you're in an inertial frame.

 

That's angle, not time.

 

You got me again,:) thanks for the clarification. Do you happen to have a good link or pdf for how atomic clocks and gps work, which system gives the most reliable coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the controversial bit

 

Galaxies can move away from each other at a rate in excess of 3c and are still accelerating, this is due to the expansion of space (the aether) between galaxies pushing them apart and is like an antigravity causing them to accelerate away from each other. When space contracts at it does around a black hole it causes gravity, as it does around any mass, space must contract, causing the stretching effect described in general relativity. Space(the aether) is flowing into all masses, giving the appearance of stretching space, and contracting out of existence. It flows into the planet from all directions like a gas pulling masses together in the vacuum.

 

Space is like a liquid that transfers all forces, and all things evolved from, space(the aether) is thought not to exist due to the M-M experiment. With space the aether flowing directly onto the surface of the planet the M-M experiment would detect nothing. With this definition of space (the aether) Space exists.

 

I wont mention instrumentation errors :)

 

 

Ok no anecdotes, could I use a stopwatch and corrections tables instead of general relativity. :)

 

How often is GPS unavailable or reset? How often does it need resetting and why would it need resetting? Are there places where GPS is not available? How many types of GPS are their and how many satellites does each system have? Which system is deemed the most reliable?

It would be nice if you had some evidence to back up your claim.

 

As for availability of GPS, that seems wildly off-topic

You got me again,:) thanks for the clarification. Do you happen to have a good link or pdf for how atomic clocks and gps work, which system gives the most reliable coverage.

Google is your friend.

 

Though most explanations of how atomic clocks work have some annoying technical errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It wasn't trying to detect the movement of space causing gravity. That is an idiotic assertion.

 

It was an attempt to measure the luminiferous aether; i.e. the assumed medium for light. Nothing to do with space or gravity.

 

If the experiment was turned on its side it will most likely detect the effect of gravity. Would you disagree with this statement.

 

I know I am on dodgy ground using the term aether, as it means many things to many people and there are many definitions.

 

I think all sentient beings reading this thread should be aware by now I am equating aether to space and what space is, what properties space has etc, nothing else.

It would be nice if you had some evidence to back up your claim.

 

As for availability of GPS, that seems wildly off-topic

 

Google is your friend.

 

Though most explanations of how atomic clocks work have some annoying technical errors.

 

On the availability point I was wondering why there was a reset 2 years ago, I think to correct some errors in timing. What was the error caused by.

 

Evidence, I am just looking at what I see and fitting an story to it :) If it doesn't conflict with einsteins general relativity and could explain special relativity, its interesting to pursue. You will recall I started in the religious thread, which I thought was the correct place for the thread(since I did not think anyone would believe on a science forum), but you upgraded me to the speculations department, which might have some truth in it. :)

 

OK a googling I go.

 

I have lots of links to keep me going for the rest of the evening.

 

Thanks for all your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the experiment was turned on its side it will most likely detect the effect of gravity. Would you disagree with this statement.

 

 

I would.

 

Although you might want to read about the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On the availability point I was wondering why there was a reset 2 years ago, I think to correct some errors in timing. What was the error caused by.

 

 

Wildly ... off ... topic

 

(but if you open a new thread and actually had a reference to what you were talking about someone might be able to help)

 

If the experiment was turned on its side it will most likely detect the effect of gravity. Would you disagree with this statement.

 

Calculate the fringe shift you would expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I would.

 

Although you might want to read about the Pound-Rebka experiment.

 

I tried Googling allsorts last night.

 

I found this vertical michelson morley experiment, that may be of interest

 

 

Then I found this one which doesn't quite agree with the first.

 

 

Perhaps they are detecting gravity perhaps they aren't. The second test hardly sees anything, the first sees clear evidence.

 

Thank you for the links ref contracting space, they are very interesting. I am not be a million miles off.

 

Ref galaxies accelerating away from each other would you accept they are in "freefall" away from each other.

 

 

Thankyou also for the pound rebka reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

Edited by Handy andy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps they are detecting gravity perhaps they aren't.

 

 

That's not how this works. You have an experimental result, you need a model to compare it to. What does the model predict, and how does that compare to the result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not you believe in space-time or aether...there seems to be an inherent tendency to associate the black hole phenomenon with "sand falling into a body and then exitting out into another dimension...because hey where else can it go." Aetherists and Space-timeists have the same explanation for gravity: black holes suck in space and create worm holes into another dimension...or aether gets sucked into earth and it goes into another dimension...

 

One thing that is curious is the force of magnetism...magnets seem like a perpetual motion device. The force of magnets seems like a current than never ceases.

 

I am too tired to properly investigate this aether. I wish I wasn't so depressed...one of these days I am going to build an inteferometer. I just dont have very much money to spend building inteferometers. I am too run down now to do any kind of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aetherists and Space-timeists have the same explanation for gravity: black holes suck in space and create worm holes into another dimension...or aether gets sucked into earth and it goes into another dimension...

 

 

That does not sound like any scientific description of black holes. (But God only knows what nonsense "atheists" could come up with.)

 

 

 

One thing that is curious is the force of magnetism...magnets seem like a perpetual motion device. The force of magnets seems like a current than never ceases.

 

If you try and extract energy from a magnet (not sure how you would do this) then eventually it will stop being a magnet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's not how this works. You have an experimental result, you need a model to compare it to. What does the model predict, and how does that compare to the result?

 

Strange posted some links a few posts back

 

 

Much as I worry about encouraging your nonsense, you might want to read about the Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates. These can be interpreted as space flowing towards a mass.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates

 

http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw_waterfall.html

 

This waterfall is exactly how I am viewing gravity to work.

 

For the purposes of designing an experiment to quantify this movement of space, firstly I need to know how fast space is contracting. I suggested in one of the earlier posts that the bending of light as it passes a star of known mass at a known distance from the star should enable a rate of contraction of space. More measurements of light at different distances from the star would enable a curve to be formed around the contraction of space. This could then be verified in a M-M experiment being carried out in the vertical orientation as shown on the utube videos above.

 

A further experiment could be carried out to ascertain if space is not only contacting towards the earth, but revolving with it also. I have been given a lot of things to read up, and need to look further into the operation of the atomic clock, because this experiment might step on the special relativity experiment. What I am considering here is taking too aeroplanes and flying them opposite ways around the equator, and comparing their clocks with a clock on the ground, I would then like to repeat the experiment over the poles, and again compare the clocks.

 

Clocks on satellites at different latitudes or moving around the planet on different trajectories might show differing times, but this you say needs to be discussed under a different thread.

 

At the current time I have a lot of things I need to study. I need to get up to speed on my gozzintos again for starters to pursue the proposed experimental ideas above, also I have a sneaky feeling some one has done this all already, so I could be wasting my time. I am learning a lot from this forum, a lot of thought provoking concepts have occurred to me, that it seems have already been discussed, but are not mainstream, I wonder why this is. It seems my concept of space has already being dreamt up by other folk already, has had some of my ionisation ideas from the other thread.

 

 

Whether or not you believe in space-time or aether...there seems to be an inherent tendency to associate the black hole phenomenon with "sand falling into a body and then exitting out into another dimension...because hey where else can it go." Aetherists and Space-timeists have the same explanation for gravity: black holes suck in space and create worm holes into another dimension...or aether gets sucked into earth and it goes into another dimension...

 

One thing that is curious is the force of magnetism...magnets seem like a perpetual motion device. The force of magnets seems like a current than never ceases.

 

I am too tired to properly investigate this aether. I wish I wasn't so depressed...one of these days I am going to build an inteferometer. I just dont have very much money to spend building inteferometers. I am too run down now to do any kind of argument.

 

I don't think gravity is to do with magnetism. I view it as being due to the contraction and or expansion of space. Space contracts around a mass and expands when free of the influence of masses. From your aether point of view, I view the aether as representing space. Space has properties, it carries all forces, and makes up all matter. I also think there are extra dimensions in space, as you have pointed out above, extra dimensions exist under string theory.

 

If something depresses you just walk away, and find something else to do. If you re run down try a guiness with a whiskey chaser, it should do the trick:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.