mooeypoo Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Dear swansont, What is then which you expected it to be? How about the solution with length contraction, is it so a sound one? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- He expects a logical answer, Nimit.. you claim A, you were shown A to not be true, and the next step is for *YOU* to state what you claim that is actually realistic and follows the laws of physics, as well as explains phenomena and allows for proper predictions. I will remind you that since you are the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not on us. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Dear swansont, What is then which you expected it to be? How about the solution with length contraction, is it so a sound one? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . IMO, if there is an aether, or whatever you want to call it, whatever it is has to allow for length contraction. The old aether didn't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted August 27, 2009 Author Share Posted August 27, 2009 The general consensus about the Aether is that it's just not needed in the observations, as far as I could understand. That is, you can explain and predict everything we see either with or without the consideration of Aether, which makes it irrelevant. Dear mooeypoo, Sorry, I am not so good in English, would you please give some examples. That is, I can also predict everything exactly the same if I include an invisible pink elephant that is unaffected by gravitational forces and is invisible to our instruments. There would be no difference in my results between including it into the calculations (it would have no effect) and not including it into the calculation. It seems that this is not a good analogy, please give a real example! So, that said, in order to "return" to the idea of the Aether, there's a need to show that the Aether is relevant.. Do you have any mathematical models that include the Aether and can explain phenomena better than the current theory that does not consider the Aether? ~moo As I have mentioned in the first post that I have proposed my idea in a scientific paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity (CSTR)” by using what I called it as “vacuum medium” which is something like (but not the same as) the old ether. In CSTR, what I have done is to improve the conventional STR by deriving the same Lorentz transformation which based on vacuum medium reference frame. And what follow is that we are able to solve the philosophic problem in STR, i.e. the increasing mass, length contraction and time dilation! (Please see detail in my website.) Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 sananda's post has been moved to its own thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 Dear friends, Up to new, I think someone may want to know about the paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity (CSTR)”, but to read its whole story seem to be a big job (actually it quite easy in this case, please try). So may be it is worth briefly talk for giving an idea; how it could improve the conventional theory! CSTR is rather a simple scientific (but not so mathematical rigor) paper in which the “Lorentz transformation” was derived based on “vacuum medium” (something resemble but not the same as ether) reference frame. [Of course we have verified the existing (with some mechanical property) of the medium.] Here, let us show how the new concept could be used to solve philosophical problems in the conventional theory. For an example, in the case of the increasing mass of a moving object, in which we can not explain why and how it is be so. Instead, armed with the existing of “vacuum medium”, it is easy to explain that the increasing mass was due to the “inertial reaction” of the medium’s resistance! To visualize the mentioned effect, it is easy while acting as a good analogy for thinking of driving a car. At low speed say < 60 km/h we would found that air resistance seems to be speed “independent” and is quite small, so it was usually neglected. When the car’s speed is increasing up to, say > 90 km/h, then air resistance effect increasing; the faster the car’s speed, the bigger air resistance, i.e. the car’s mass is speed “dependent”! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 If mass increases with speed with respect to the "vacuum medium," shouldn't this mass be the same in all frames? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share Posted September 3, 2009 If mass increases with speed with respect to the "vacuum medium," shouldn't this mass be the same in all frames? Dear swansont, Any mass which is staying rest to “vacuum medium” reference frame would has its intrinsic mass, while any mass which is moving relative to the medium will increase its mass according to the gamma factor. By the way, it is interesting to note that in the conventional theory, Einstein has used two assumptions i.e. “physics is the same for any inertial frame” and “light velocity is the same any inertial observer”. But, with careful consideration, we would wonder why the second assumption has to be stated, is light different from other physics? In contrast, for the improved theory, only one assumption was needed i.e. “physics is the same reference to vacuum medium frame”! And it is no need to state another assumption (i.e. “light velocity is the same reference to vacuum medium frame”) because light velocity in isotopic and homogeneous vacuum medium is constant, c. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sananda Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 If mass increases with speed with respect to the "vacuum medium," shouldn't this mass be the same in all frames? of course it is if the rate of time experienced by that mass is also controlled by how much of this subtle stuff is available to the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Dear swansont, Any mass which is staying rest to “vacuum medium” reference frame would has its intrinsic mass, while any mass which is moving relative to the medium will increase its mass according to the gamma factor. By the way, it is interesting to note that in the conventional theory, Einstein has used two assumptions i.e. “physics is the same for any inertial frame” and “light velocity is the same any inertial observer”. But, with careful consideration, we would wonder why the second assumption has to be stated, is light different from other physics? In contrast, for the improved theory, only one assumption was needed i.e. “physics is the same reference to vacuum medium frame”! And it is no need to state another assumption (i.e. “light velocity is the same reference to vacuum medium frame”) because light velocity in isotopic and homogeneous vacuum medium is constant, c. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . So why does mass of a particle remain constant in its own frame? It's moving with respect to the vacuum medium frame, yet relativity has an invariant mass. You have to state that c is a constant in all frames, because it's not generally true. The speed of a moving car, or indeed any massive particle, is not the same in all frames. Light is special in that way, and this was not broadly recognized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberphlak Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Einstein - never a proven genius, mostly just followed up on other people's theories. We must remember that GR and SR are theories and not laws. To be a law, it must apply universally. Clearly, they do not apply everywhere. Whether to believe all Quantum theory or not is entirely subjective. To deny evidence of observed interactions that contradict Einstein's theories, that is another matter. Whether we call all the missing mass aether, ether, dust, dark matter or peanuts doesn't much matter. What seems to be clear is that there is unaccounted for mass in what was thought to be "empty space". There is also energy, from various sources and the presence of forces. Space seems to be anything but empty. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share Posted September 8, 2009 So why does mass of a particle remain constant in its own frame? It's moving with respect to the vacuum medium frame, yet relativity has an invariant mass. Dear swansont, Sorry, may be my former post (# 34) is not quite clear, so I would like to restate it as follow; Any mass which is staying rest to “vacuum medium” reference frame would has its “constant” intrinsic mass, while any mass which is “in any inertial reference frame” which is moving relative to the “vacuum medium” will increase its mass according to the gamma factor. Let us reconsider further for the former mentioned example of a moving car on our earth’s surface. First, let us forget for awhile about the rotation of the earth, and also assumed that the air is staying still relative to the earth. So the moving car relative to the “resting frame” of the air (and earth) will increase its mass! (While the car which stay still on the earth will have its intrinsic mass.) Now consider in the real case of the rotating earth together with the air which is dragging along (as if it is staying still relative to the earth). And according to the concept of dragging along of the vacuum medium with the earth, we should expect the increased mass (due to vacuum medium) of the moving car too! Any way, because the tiny speed of the car (compare with light) and also the very very thin density of vacuum medium (compare to air), so it is hopeless to observe it! You have to state that c is a constant in all frames, No, light velocity is the same “reference to vacuum medium frame”, because light velocity in isotopic and homogeneous vacuum medium is constant, c! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 vacuodynamic, you seem to be missing the main point of Einstein's ether. Yes, Einstein did return to the concept of an "ether". From http://physicsworldarchive.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=14%2F6%2Fphwv14i6a33%40pwa%2Dxml&qt= (emphasis mine): Most physics students learn from their text books that in 1905 Einstein banished the ether from physics as part of the revolution initiated by his special theory of relativity. What they generally do not learn is that in 1916 he reintroduced the concept as part of the revolution initiated by his general theory of relativity. The catch is, of course, that the ether he reintroduced differed fundamentally from the ether he had banished. So what is Einstein's ether? Another name for it: curved spacetime. As I have mentioned in the first post that I have proposed my idea in a scientific paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity (CSTR)” by using what I called it as “vacuum medium” which is something like (but not the same as) the old ether. Until you produce some sort of plausible argument and preferably evidence for this idea of yours, this idea of yours is speculation or pseudoscience. Thread moved to Pseudoscience and Speculation.[/red] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Einstein - never a proven genius, mostly just followed up on other people's theories. We must remember that GR and SR are theories and not laws. To be a law, it must apply universally. Clearly, they do not apply everywhere. Whether to believe all Quantum theory or not is entirely subjective. To deny evidence of observed interactions that contradict Einstein's theories, that is another matter. Whether we call all the missing mass aether, ether, dust, dark matter or peanuts doesn't much matter. What seems to be clear is that there is unaccounted for mass in what was thought to be "empty space". There is also energy, from various sources and the presence of forces. Space seems to be anything but empty. cyberphlak, please take an opportunity to review the rules, specifically 2.5 and 2.10, regarding off-topic and non-mainstream posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) vacuodynamic, you seem to be missing the main point of Einstein's ether. Yes, Einstein did return to the concept of an "ether". From http://physicsworldarchive.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=14%2F6%2Fphwv14i6a33%40pwa%2Dxml&qt= (emphasis mine): Most physics students learn from their text books that in 1905 Einstein banished the ether from physics as part of the revolution initiated by his special theory of relativity. What they generally do not learn is that in 1916 he reintroduced the concept as part of the revolution initiated by his general theory of relativity. The catch is, of course, that the ether he reintroduced differed fundamentally from the ether he had banished. So what is Einstein's ether? Another name for it: curved spacetime. Dear D H, What is the mentioned “curve space-time” or more specificly, how space-time could be curved? Is it a physical space or just an abstract mathematical idea? Until you produce some sort of plausible argument and preferably evidence for this idea of yours, this idea of yours is speculation or pseudoscience. Have you ever been look in my paper before? And at what point which you consider it as a speculation or pseudoscience? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Edited September 10, 2009 by vacuodynamic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share Posted September 13, 2009 Dear D H, I have read “swansont” concept which told “Why has my post been move to Pseudoscience & Speculation?” So I will try to explain how my proposed theory is quite fulfill with the written concept (as below), so would you please reconsider it again? Topic: NO MATHS. – Lack of a legitimate framework? - In my paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity (CSTR)”, not only the derivation of the Lorentz transformation by using k-calculus, but also the other derivation such as the "increasing mass" and derivation of acoustic wave's relativistic doppler effect,etc. Topic: INCOMPREHENSIBLE – Without presenting the material using the framework that already exists? - In my mentioned theory, well-defined terminology referenced to academic text books was used and it was referred in the reference of the paper. Topic: YOU ARE CONTRADICTING ACCEPTED SCIENCE – If you are proposing a new theory, it has to do better than the one it’s supplanting. - The only contradiction between my theory (CSTR) and the conventional relativity (STR) is whether ether (vacuum medium) is existed? And as I have explained early that in the conventional way which tried to prove it, but the result is not a clear cut one. - my new theory (CSTR) was developed in the scientific way as STR do, but with a more philosophical idea than the conventional way which is rather an abstraction and based on only the assumptions! Topic: NO EVIDENCE – No predicted or explained by accepted science. - As mentioned in the previous topic about proving the existence of ether (vacuum medium), I have proposed an obvious prove using the simple scientific experiment with solenoids as mentioned in my post #10 , in which I am quite confident that no one can argue! Topic: NO PHYSICAL BASIC – A reasoned rational to justify the hypothesis must exist. - In the new theory (CSTR), we can provide physical meaning of the Lorentz transformation, not only the mathematical formulas as in the conventional STR! Topic: OBVIOUS ERROR – A quick inspection shows statements that are not true. - For me who is the author, I can not found any thing which is wrong! Would you please show me some? IT IS NOT SCIENCE – Philosophy and metaphysics are separate topics, and for these purposes, consider speculation. - You are right, but only in the case that the propose idea have no any mathematical formulation. And in the opposite way, a scientific theory without philosophic idea, which explains how it works, seems not a good one. The reason is that how could science progress without understanding! By the way, it is interesting to note that the ancient Maya which could predict some celestial events correctly but without understanding how it works. (And please remember that prediction is the final aim of science.) Then the price that they had to be paid was the sacrifice of their people! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Topic: INCOMPREHENSIBLE Sorry to be blunt, but that one word pretty much sums up how I would classify your writing. Topic: NO EVIDENCE – No predicted or explained by accepted science.- As mentioned in the previous topic about proving the existence of ether (vacuum medium), I have proposed an obvious prove using the simple scientific experiment with solenoids as mentioned in my post #10 , in which I am quite confident that no one can argue! Let's take a look. Let’s consider an experiment using two nearly identical solenoids, the smaller diameter one was inserted in the bigger one. When both solenoids are feed with the same amount (and same polarity) of direct currents, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is double. But when the feeding currents are opposite, then the sum of the generated magnetic field is zero! Someone may say that it is what it should be, yes it is, but where is the generated energy gone (in the second case)? It is not possible to be something like that, because we still feed the same amount of energy into both solenoids. No, we don't. Read up on mutual inductance. I also suggest reading up on transformers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 One must note that just one criterion must be met, not all of them. Plus, the list is not complete; it's merely the most common reasons. But several comments have been made which are related to the items on this list, and you haven't adequately addressed them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Let's take a look. No, we don't. Read up on mutual inductance. I also suggest reading up on transformers. Dear D H, IT seems that you have overlook that we are talking about the experiment with “direct current power supply ” not “alternating current power supply ” . Have you ever seen a “direct current” transformer? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Edited September 16, 2009 by vacuodynamic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Nimit, you missed the point. I suggested you read about transformers because transformers are an application of mutual inductance. You ignored mutual inductance to arrive at your paradox. Do you think that mutual inductance goes away just because you are using direct current? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) Nimit, you missed the point. I suggested you read about transformers because transformers are an application of mutual inductance. You ignored mutual inductance to arrive at your paradox. Do you think that mutual inductance goes away just because you are using direct current? Dear D H, Yes, I do; my advantage is that I am a former electrical - communication engineer who used to involve not only on electromagnetic theory, but also with the applied one! Do you have any other argument? By the way, actually I have two other scientific indirect prove methods for the existing of the vacuum medium (ether). The first one is an analogy working with acoustic wave energy, and the second one is working with electromagnetic energy (radio wave energy) instead of magnetic energy only. Anyway, the first one is quite naïve (primary school physics (?), so please see in another scientific paper VMTE in my website), while the second one is more interesting, but it is not so common to theoretical physicist, but quite well known to communication engineer! Here is a short summary for the second method; in VHF radio broadcasting system which wants to send the radio signal to a desired direction, a two-element directional antenna (half-wave dipole) was used. By arrangement of the two antennas in a certain position, the resultant transmitting waves from them was superimposed and could be got to the desired direction. Anyway, when further distance between the antennas was adjusted, finally we will found that the transmitting wave’s energy is decreasing approaching zero (while keeping constant of input power)! Please see detail in my website. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Edited September 18, 2009 by vacuodynamic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 There would be some beam spread, the energy density will decrease over the area of the detector as you move it away until it is no longer sensitive to detect the signal. There is also some absorption in the air and other objects the radiation travels through. There is nothing that requires ether here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 There would be some beam spread, the energy density will decrease over the area of the detector as you move it away until it is no longer sensitive to detect the signal. There is also some absorption in the air and other objects the radiation travels through. There is nothing that requires ether here. Dear Klaynos, IT seems that you are not so familiar with radio communication system! What I am talking about is “the decreasing of power density of the transmitting wave energy” at “the same fixed point (or area) reference to the antennas” while decreasing the spacing between the two antennas, NOT the “the decreasing of power density of the transmitting wave energy” when “increasing the receiving distance from the antennas”. Please see technical detail explanation in the referenced paper (VMTE), thanks. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Dear Klaynos, IT seems that you are not so familiar with radio communication system! What I am talking about is “the decreasing of power density of the transmitting wave energy” at “the same fixed point (or area) reference to the antennas” while decreasing the spacing between the two antennas, NOT the “the decreasing of power density of the transmitting wave energy” when “increasing the receiving distance from the antennas”. Please see technical detail explanation in the referenced paper (VMTE), thanks. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Sorry I must have misread your post, then it's a simple case of working out the interference of the two waves at the given point and seeing hos this varies, this can mostly be done with classical wave theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vacuodynamic Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 Sorry I must have misread your post, then it's a simple case of working out the interference of the two waves at the given point and seeing hos this varies, this can mostly be done with classical wave theory. Dear Klaynos, It seems that you come closer that it is due to the interference effect, but in this case, it is not a common interference effect which the final result (total energy) is conserved! Instead, it is a special case in which the “total energy” is NOT conserved. That is, it is a total destructive interference in which all of the transmitting wave energy reducing approaching to zero (while decreasing the separate distance between the antennas) while the power input to the antennas is keeping constant! By the way, it is not so easy to visualize how it is something like that. What we have to do is to study the subject in technical (mathematical) detail and finally you could verify it experimentally! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The total energy is conserved. There is no way this cannot be the case. Without knowing the precise set up and spending a few days modelling it I can't tell you where the energy is, but I can tell you it is conserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts