I hereby challenge Relativity and promote Aether.

[quickquestion]

 

Which is exactly what you are doing in this thread.

Lorentz aether is mental gymnastics.

Special relativity is mental gymnastics.

 

My aether is not stationary lorentz aether.

And heres' an example of what I mean about SR.

 

 

Basically, what einstein did is say..."hey...how do i solve this problem in science, without looking at any experiments or evidence...hmm. Wouldnt it be easier if just, light violated the laws of newtonian time." And then they say...Hey, yeah, that would make it easier. Lets just say that light violates the laws of newtonian time, and then hope that future experiments, of which we are clouded by our own bias in our favor, prove us right.

 

For instance, I was reading in a book about Einstein how a certain pulsar discovered in the 70's proved Einstein right. It said that the puslar pulsed at even intervals....this proves that the light was not accelerated or deccelerated by the pulsars orbit speed and thus Einstein is right. Ok...but that explanation is completely violating Occams razor. Wouldnt it be easier to say, that the light has the same velocity, simply because C is the maximum velocity light can go in space? And thus light always travels at C? Rather than say, the reason the pulsar has even intervals is because it has special, magical-sounding time properties?

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by quickquestion

[studiot]

 

quickquestion post#24

Fizeau experiment implies aether drag is real, but theorists use the mental gynastics to somehow ignore Occams razor and conclude that his implications are false.

 

Like Michelson, Fizeau performed many experiments. Which one are you referring to?

 

Can you precis the experiment for us please, stating how the important conclusion is arrived at?

 

And which theorist(s) claimed this as false?

[quickquestion]

 

Like Michelson, Fizeau performed many experiments. Which one are you referring to?

 

Can you precis the experiment for us please, stating how the important conclusion is arrived at?

 

And which theorist(s) claimed this as false?

According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. Fizeau indeed detected a dragging effect, but the magnitude of the effect that he observed was far lower than expected. His results seemingly supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of Fresnel, a situation that was disconcerting to most physicists. Over half a century passed before a satisfactory explanation of Fizeau's unexpected measurement was developed with the advent of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. Einstein later pointed out the importance of the experiment for special relativity, in which it corresponds to the relativistic velocity-addition formula when restricted to small velocities.

 

 

 

From wikipedia.

And einstein using mental gymnastics to disprove the obvious implications of Frenzel.

 

We know einstein's time dilation is impossible because the time-dilation curves are non-linear.

I thought of the Grandma Problem to disprove Einstein, but Einstein also foresaw a similar error in his theory, so in his 1905 paper he demonstrated the Twins Paradox and tried to explain a solution.

His solution was that the divergent realities would be reconciled on the return trip to Earth.

However, since time-dilation curves are non-linear, all you have to do to create 2 alternate realities is simply drive slower on the way back.

So if you believe Einstein, you also believe that simply driving on the road will put your consciousness in an alternate reality and alternate dimension, and create a duplicate dimension where you are in but everyone else is pzombies.

[Phi for All]

And heres' an example of what I mean about SR.

 

Where did your example come from, and why didn't you give citation? The quote seems amateurish at best, ranty and crackpotted drivel with waving hands and no meat. I'd like to know where you found it, why you decided to quote it, and why you think it doesn't deserve to be cited. I couldn't find it anywhere else on the net, so what are you up to?

 

Here it is again in case you forgot:

Basically, what einstein did is say..."hey...how do i solve this problem in science, without looking at any experiments or evidence...hmm. Wouldnt it be easier if just, light violated the laws of newtonian time." And then they say...Hey, yeah, that would make it easier. Lets just say that light violates the laws of newtonian time, and then hope that future experiments, of which we are clouded by our own bias in our favor, prove us right.

For instance, I was reading in a book about Einstein how a certain pulsar discovered in the 70's proved Einstein right. It said that the puslar pulsed at even intervals....this proves that the light was not accelerated or deccelerated by the pulsars orbit speed and thus Einstein is right. Ok...but that explanation is completely violating Occams razor. Wouldnt it be easier to say, that the light has the same velocity, simply because C is the maximum velocity light can go in space? And thus light always travels at C? Rather than say, the reason the pulsar has even intervals is because it has special, magical-sounding time properties?

 

[studiot]

From wikipedia.

And einstein using mental gymnastics to disprove the obvious implications of Frenzel.

 

 

 

Well done you found that in record time.

 

However you did not read it quite thoroughly enough.

 

It clearly states the connection to the Lorenz-Fizgerald length contraction was deduced by Max Von Laue, not Einstein.

Special Relativity was not involved or invoked.

Of course SR has the same formula by a different route, so will yield the same end result.

 

So far we have at least three routes to the result;

 

I look forward to you posting your calculations, commensurate with your mathematical ether description, to arrive at this result.

[swansont]

Lorentz aether is mental gymnastics.

Special relativity is mental gymnastics.

 

My aether is not stationary lorentz aether.

And heres' an example of what I mean about SR.

 

Well the, why don't you describe the proprties of your aether? Some experiments that could test for the existence of it?

[quickquestion]

 

Where did your example come from, and why didn't you give citation? The quote seems amateurish at best, ranty and crackpotted drivel with waving hands and no meat. I'd like to know where you found it, why you decided to quote it, and why you think it doesn't deserve to be cited. I couldn't find it anywhere else on the net, so what are you up to?

 

Here it is again in case you forgot:

It is a quote from me I made earlier.

You're the one waving hands and not saying anything of substance...did you get the point I made about the pulsar or no.

 

Well the, why don't you describe the proprties of your aether? Some experiments that could test for the existence of it?

The experiment would be an accelerated interferometer. Put an intereferometer in a room, accelerate it, and watch how the interference patterns indicate they no longer match up. The acceleration must be large to compensate for the low quality of the device.

 

I look forward to you posting your calculations, commensurate with your mathematical ether description, to arrive at this result.

 

Aether is a fluid and thus difficult to give the exact calculation of.

However the Frenzel experiment does give me the results I had hoped for...that when light is in water, the aether is dragged with the water but not fully dragged, and thus light is slowed down slightly.

[studiot]

.

 

Aether is a fluid and thus difficult to give the exact calculation of.

However the Frenzel experiment does give me the results I had hoped for...that when light is in water, the aether is dragged with the water but not fully dragged, and thus light is slowed down slightly.

 

Difficult or easy the link you provided stated an explicit mathematical derivation of the exact value measured from Lorenz .

 

 

I was hoping for the same from your hypothesis.

 

Also please explain why your ether has to be a fluid, and what property of this fluid restricts the vibrations of lightwaves to the transverse mode?

Edited April 22, 2017 by studiot

[quickquestion]

 

Difficult or easy the link you provided stated an explicit mathematical derivation of the exact value measured from Lorenz .

 

 

I was hoping for the same from your hypothesis.

 

Also please explain why your ether has to be a fluid, and what property of this fluid restricts the vibrations of lightwaves to the transverse mode?

Lorentz made his theories from a false premise, that ether was stationary.

 

 

Transverse electromagnetic (TEM) is a mode of propagation where the electric and magnetic field lines are all restricted to directions normal (transverse) to the direction of propagation. Plane waves are TEM, however, we are more interested in what types of transmission lines can support TEM.

 

if I put my finger in a tub, it is natural that waves will propel outward from my finger.

[studiot]

Lorentz made his theories from a false premise, that ether was stationary.

 

if I put my finger in a tub, it is natural that waves will propel outward from my finger.

 

Before you can show whether your fluid ether is stationary or not you need to put some detail in place.

 

Light waves are only transverse and are body waves. I do not understand the relevance of discussion transmission lines.

 

This is a big difficulty for fluid ether theories as fluid cannot directly support S or transverse body waves.

The waves in a tub you are referring to are surface waves, which are different again, and not body waves.

 

[aside]

This is why we think the Earth has a liquid core.

Seismologists can generate two types of body waves in the Earth. S waves and P waves.

However we observe that only the P waves travel through the core, thus leading to the hypothesis that the Earth has a liquid core.

[/aside]

 

If you understand isotropy you will immediately this this follows from the fact that whilst solids can support anisotropic action and S waves (light light), fluids cannot.

 

Pressure is the same in all directions at a point in a fluid so a fluid can only support P waves.

 

We have direct confirmation that light is transverse because it can be plane polarised.

Only transverse waves can be polarised.

 

Many have looked for some longitudinal effect.

All have so far failed.

As you would expect because a longitudinal effect would imply 'something' arriving before a light wave.

 

So I ask again.

 

How does your ether support transverse waves?

[quickquestion]

I have never been taught anything of this so can you fill me in on a few details.

 

I don't know how something can be "normal" to a line, to be normal you need at least 3 points.

 

By S waves, body waves, and transverse waves, do you mean that the wave is flat and 2 dimensional?

 

But the official photograph of light looks like 3d lasagna.

[studiot]

I have never been taught anything of this so can you fill me in on a few details.

 

I don't know how something can be "normal" to a line, to be normal you need at least 3 points.

 

By S waves, body waves, and transverse waves, do you mean that the wave is flat and 2 dimensional?

 

But the official photograph of light looks like 3d lasagna.

 

 

Official photograph of light.

 

I like that.

 

 

Body waves spread throughout the region of passage.

 

Surface waves exist only on the surface of the region.

 

Ocean waves are surface waves. A few metres below the surface there are no waves and all is calm.

 

Light passes through water, glass, even empty space and does not affect only the surface but occupies all of it.

Obviously something that is not transparent will absorb light but that is another story for another time.

Your 'photograph' will show this passing through a region of space.

 

Wave motion is a form of motion when something(s) vibrate regularly and pass on the vibration along the line.

The vibration can be in the same direction as the direction travel. Such waves are known as longitudinal waves.

Sound is a typical example. The air particles move in and out along the direction the sound is travelling, creating pressure vartions that are passed on along the line.

 

The alternative is for the vibration to occur transversally (at right angles) to the direction of motion.

If you create waves along a rope by flicking it up and down, these are transverse waves.

 

Now there is only one 'direction of travel', but you can flick that rope up and down or side to side or diagonally, or vary the flicking direction.

 

So transverse waves have many possible directions of vibration available.

If they are composed so that only one direction is used (say up and down with the rope) the wave is said to be polarised in that direction.

 

Obviously with only one direction available to a longitudinal wave there is no point distinguishing a polarisation.

 

Light can be polarised so it is a transverse wave.

Edited April 22, 2017 by studiot

[quickquestion]

 

An S wave, in an earth quake, as you can see the Earth functions as a fluid in regards to the wave.

Similarly light functions as a thinner wave in Aether, similar to the S wave in the the above diagram.

 

I want to also mention something about QM.

Our sense of past and future is a bit of an illusion...the QM wave already part the future that it will be observed and collided, and thus condenses as a particle.

[studiot]

 

An S wave, in an earth quake, as you can see the Earth functions as a fluid in regards to the wave.

Similarly light functions as a thinner wave in Aether, similar to the S wave in the the above diagram.

 

I want to also mention something about QM.

Our sense of past and future is a bit of an illusion...the QM wave already part the future that it will be observed and collided, and thus condenses as a particle.

 

 

A fluid takes the shape of its container.

 

I see no evidence that this happens to the Earth during an earthquake, especially not from your inaccurate pictures.

 

Incidentally all development of ether theories were tied to classical mechanics.

SR was developed to explain the discrepancies observed in actual experiments.

Quantum theory did not exist at all at that stage and even the electron had not been discovered, nor the structure of the atom.

 

So QM is entirely off topic.

[John Cuthber]

I have never been taught anything of this .

It shows.

[quickquestion]

 

 

A fluid takes the shape of its container.

 

I see no evidence that this happens to the Earth during an earthquake, especially not from your inaccurate pictures.

 

Incidentally all development of ether theories were tied to classical mechanics.

SR was developed to explain the discrepancies observed in actual experiments.

Quantum theory did not exist at all at that stage and even the electron had not been discovered, nor the structure of the atom.

 

So QM is entirely off topic.

What I meant by fluid is that it moves in a fluid manner.

 

SR was developed to explain away discrepancies, but can you explain away the discrepancies I found in SR?

[studiot]

What I meant by fluid is that it moves in a fluid manner.

 

SR was developed to explain away discrepancies, but can you explain away the discrepancies I found in SR?

 

Which is why it takes the shape of its container.

 

Is your ether a gas or a liquid (both are fluids) ?

 

A gas expands to fill its container, a liquid does not.

A liquid takes the shape of its container wherever it touches but retains most of its free surface.

 

 

You haven't found any discrepancies in SR, nor has any human ever reported any in any experiment to date.

 

I thought perhaps you might be interested in learning something and I was offering you a chance to present something of your own, rather than just attacking what others think.

Edited April 22, 2017 by studiot

[quickquestion]

 

Which is why it takes the shape of its container.

 

Is your ether a gas or a liquid (both are fluids) ?

 

A gas expands to fill its container, a liquid does not.

A liquid takes the shape of its container wherever it touches but retains most of its free surface.

 

 

You haven't found any discrepancies in SR, nor has any human ever reported any in any experiment to date.

 

I thought perhaps you might be interested in learning something and I was offering you a chance to present something of your own, rather than just attacking what others think.

Aether would then be a gas.

 

Einstein said that if SR was disproven he feared it would mean Aether is real.

Thus it is actually easier to simply disprove SR than prove Aether.

But I will eventually prove Aether.

 

One way to disprove SR is the fact of time-dilation.

SR is disproven by these two thought-experiments.

Einstein is finally defeated by the Grandma Problem. The Grandma Problem is a thought experiment that says this; "If a grandma is watching an astronaut take off at 99% c, and then she goes and walks to her suburban house with her binoculars...The astronaut will see himself at Mars but the grandma still on the beach. And when he returns, they will both be in alternate realities, creating pzombies of each other."

 

This can be further demonstrated by the fact that light is not instantaneous to observers, but has a speed, c. If a particle of light was conscious, it would create a paradox for the universe, because when it observed, time would be standing still, and it would still be at the early stage of the universe, passing planets which do not yet exist for it...but to other observers, it would be moving through space, and passing planets freely. Thus any conscious observer who moves at c creates a paradox. (But also any conscious observer who moves subluminal would also create a paradox of divergent realities.) Thus we know that Einstein's relativity is false, because it claims Time stops if it travels at c...which is demonstrably false because light collides with objects located in the present location, and not the location they had when the light was first emitted.

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by quickquestion

[swansont]

The experiment would be an accelerated interferometer. Put an intereferometer in a room, accelerate it, and watch how the interference patterns indicate they no longer match up. The acceleration must be large to compensate for the low quality of the device.

 

How does that prove an aether exists? Fringe shifts in accelerated interferometers are consistent with relativity (e.g. Sagnac effect) You need an equation predicting the size of the shifts, and that the predicted results are different than what relativity predicts.

[John Cuthber]

Aether would then be a gas.

 

Einstein said that if SR was disproven he feared it would mean Aether is real.

Thus it is actually easier to simply disprove SR than prove Aether.

But I will eventually prove Aether.

 

One way to disprove SR is the fact of time-dilation.

SR is disproven by these two thought-experiments.

SR doesn't even apply to that scenario.

This bit " And when he returns, they will " makes it clear that an acceleration is involved.

Since SR doesn't apply to that situation, how can it be disproven by it?

[studiot]

Aether would then be a gas.

 

Einstein said that if SR was disproven he feared it would mean Aether is real.

Thus it is actually easier to simply disprove SR than prove Aether.

But I will eventually prove Aether.

 

One way to disprove SR is the fact of time-dilation.

SR is disproven by these two thought-experiments.

 

Hard evidence, like hard cash, is all that counts in the real world.

 

We can use thought experiments to explain something, never to prove / disprove it.

 

Validation (we don'r prove things in sciences outside maths) requires real world experiments with real world results.

 

I note you use the word Aether. I have consistently used ether or ethers because there have been many different propositions as to what an ether might be.

The lumeniferous aether was one particular version only and the term really belongs to the gentleman who invented it.

 

So here is your big opportunity

 

Why would your ether be a gas, not a liquid?

 

Note the propensity of a gas to expand precludes S type waves of the type you pictured.

[Strange]

Hint: I don't believe in lumi-wind, my aether is different and more similar to aether drag.

 

 

Which has been tested and no evidence for it found. So what do you base your belief on? Wishful thinking?

We know einstein's time dilation is impossible because the time-dilation curves are non-linear.

 

 

So non-linear effects are impossible now? That means your computer can't work.

 

And as we can not only test time dilation in experiments but also use it in technology, it seems this claim is incorrect.

 

 

 

I thought of the Grandma Problem to disprove Einstein

 

Your "grandma paradox" has nothing to do with relativity. It is a just stupid scenario you made up.

SR was developed to explain away discrepancies, but can you explain away the discrepancies I found in SR?

 

 

You haven't shown any discrepancies in SR.

 

What you have shown is that if you make up some nonsense that has no connection to reality or any known scientific theory, then it may not make sense. Surprise.

[swansont]

SR is disproven by these two thought-experiments.

 

 

The only way to disprove it is to compare it with an actual experiment. See if the prediction matches what really happens.

 

SR is expressed in mathematical terms, which allows you to make the predictions. But until you compare it with experiment, it's just math, and since that math is self-consistent, it can't be wrong. If you find a discrepancy in a thought experiment, it means you have made a mistake.

[quickquestion]

 

Hard evidence, like hard cash, is all that counts in the real world.

 

We can use thought experiments to explain something, never to prove / disprove it.

 

Validation (we don'r prove things in sciences outside maths) requires real world experiments with real world results.

 

I note you use the word Aether. I have consistently used ether or ethers because there have been many different propositions as to what an ether might be.

The lumeniferous aether was one particular version only and the term really belongs to the gentleman who invented it.

 

So here is your big opportunity

 

Why would your ether be a gas, not a liquid?

 

Note the propensity of a gas to expand precludes S type waves of the type you pictured.

Not fully sure aether is a gas. It could be the 6th form of matter. My theory of aether is in the early stages. Aether's drag is difficult to calculate. Expect more equations when I am less depressed and opressed.

 

For instance, I went to a church full of those born of engineers and some were better at math than me. I continually tried to reason with them that god was cruel, eventually, that god did not exist. But they would all reject my arguments and ostracize me. I believe that this stunted my feeling of a social connection with them. And that had I felt a more positive social connection, I would have been better at math because when they taught me it they would feel like a friend and not an enemy. Math is a form of communication, and lack of positive social faith dampens my instinct to want to communicate. It was a feeling of...they are better at math, but what has math done for them as human beings? They are cruel and believe in false gods. This dampened my worship of mathematics.

 

 

 

 

Which has been tested and no evidence for it found. So what do you base your belief on? Wishful thinking?

 

 

So non-linear effects are impossible now? That means your computer can't work.

 

And as we can not only test time dilation in experiments but also use it in technology, it seems this claim is incorrect.

 

 

Your "grandma paradox" has nothing to do with relativity. It is a just stupid scenario you made up.

 

 

You haven't shown any discrepancies in SR.

 

What you have shown is that if you make up some nonsense that has no connection to reality or any known scientific theory, then it may not make sense. Surprise.

My nonsense has a very connection to reality so listen clear.

 

SR says that if you look at time OUTSIDE of a capsule, it will slow down.

So, if I am going fast in a space shuttle and look outside at a clock, it will be going slowly.

This does not refer to the visual effect of photon delay alone, but that it actually is physically slower.

At 99.999999999999999 c it would not be hardly moving at all. Time would "stop".

Photons in space go 99.99999999999999999999 c. So if time truly "stopped" they should be colliding with planets in the position of when the photons were first launched. But instead, they collide with planets as they are now. Who'd a thunk it.

Time dilation, being a god-substance that is not needed.

Puslar's steady pulse can be attributed to that C is the max speed of light.

Time dilation is not needed. 1970's Nobel Prize for proving einstein, but einstein was not proved by this nobel prize.

Assuradely, you have many things which you want to prove einstein by, such as GPS. I will get to them later. There is a lot of clutter in the attic, and I have to clear things away, one by one. So I will disprove the most obvious false conclusions first.

If you cannot see this then I don't know what to say.

But I am cooking up some examples and visual diagrams which will further disprove time dilation.

[John Cuthber]

"Photons in space go 99.99999999999999999999 c. So if time truly "stopped" they should be colliding with planets in the position of when the photons were "

 

You do realise that's only true from the proton's perspective don't you?

And, from their point of view, the distance between them and the planet they hit is shortened by Fitzgerald contraction to such a degree that they do expect to hit it almost immediately- and that's exactly when they hit it.

From our point of view- i.e. not moving so fast WRT the source of the photons ro the planet, the time taken is pretty much teh distance divided by C

 

Essentially, you seem to have failed to understand time dilation and- because you are considering a wrong version that you made up, you think it doesn't work.

...

Furthermore, I would also like to point out something I noticed in the book "Phenomenal Physics." Occams razor says "Entities should not be multiplied excessively."

 

 

Not fully sure aether is a gas. It could be the 6th form of matter.