Is the 'c' in E=mc^2 describing ether density?

[sananda]

Just a question I wanted to pose to you all.

 

From what I can see, most if not all experiments to do with 'c' have been verified through the speeding up or slowing down of atomic clocks based on whether they are within close proximity to earth, in space, or moving relative to a stationary target on earth (no need to point out that the stationary target is not actually stationary).

 

So is the 'c' in the equation just referring to the density of ether with specific reference to the timeframe in question, rather than the fact that a light beam will always measure 'c' to moving sensors?

 

I think it is the former.

 

Thinking about E=mc^2 in terms of light beams and moving observers is counter-intuitive for most, but if it refers to that medium that controls the speed of light and how traversing it affects matter (the kind with mass), it becomes very palatable indeed.

 

The fact that nobody has really done these sorts of experiments with light is shocking... but I will make a prediction here that 'c' will change if 'c' refers the speed of a specific light beam depending on whether an observer is moving towards it, or away from it!!!

[The Clairvoyant]

The fact that nobody has really done these sorts of experiments with light is shocking... but I will make a prediction here that 'c' will change if 'c' refers the speed of a specific light beam depending on whether an observer is moving towards it, or away from it!!!

 

This is way over my head at the moment but I would like to ask why nobody has done these experiments with light ?

[sananda]

I asked about them here and all the experiments quoted were done through counting/measuring the tick rate of clocks.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is way over my head at the moment but I would like to ask why nobody has done these experiments with light ?

 

Probably because they don't think they need to.

 

But if it does break relativity then what then???

 

Will they cover the cracks using bubblegum, the way Lorentz did with ether?

 

I wonder would they have removed ether had he not changed his mind so much, but I suppose the race was on.

 

Imagine how much simpler it will all be when light is just a wave again.

[The Clairvoyant]

I asked about them here and all the experiments quoted were done through counting/measuring the tick rate of clocks.

 

 

So why's that then ?

[iNow]

There is no ether. When one says "c" they are using it as a constant. It represents a real number which does not change. It's just a variable... Like when you do algebra and represent a quantity with "x." The only difference is c is a constant representing the speed of light, but it is just a number, and has zero to do with ether.

 

Also, you referred to moving toward or away, and the effect you describe is known as the doppler effect. While the frequency of the light will be shifted due to the doppler effect, it's speed will be unchanged. You are trying to apply classical mechanics to light, and unfortunately that's not how nature behaves.

[mooeypoo]

I asked about them here and all the experiments quoted were done through counting/measuring the tick rate of clocks.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Probably because they don't think they need to.

 

But if it does break relativity then what then???

You were given experiments that were tested with electromagnetic waves -- which is light! -- you just seem to either ignore them or pretend they weren't given so you can make your point.

 

GPS systems, I remind you, use both electromagnetic communication (light!) AND atomic clocks and demonstrate the predictive power of relativity.

 

Will they cover the cracks using bubblegum, the way Lorentz did with ether?

Do you even know what you are talking about sananda? You seem to be answering quite complicated physical notions with utter disregard to how science works. No citations, no evidence for your claim, just blatant claims.

 

Please stop.

 

I wonder would they have removed ether had he not changed his mind so much, but I suppose the race was on.

 

Imagine how much simpler it will all be when light is just a wave again.

And yet, how wrong.

 

Read some physics, will ya? There's a reason light is "no longer just a wave", it did not come out of someone's orifice.

 

Read.

 

~moo

[sananda]

it actually did come out of someone's orifice...

 

the lads who were coming up with the stuff we take for granted today were making crap up to fit formulas.

 

oh and this is the speculations board, surely I'm free to speculate here LOL

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There is no ether. When one says "c" they are using it as a constant. It represents a real number which does not change. It's just a variable... Like when you do algebra and represent a quantity with "x." The only difference is c is a constant representing the speed of light, but it is just a number, and has zero to do with ether.

 

Also, you referred to moving toward or away, and the effect you describe is known as the doppler effect. While the frequency of the light will be shifted due to the doppler effect, it's speed will be unchanged. You are trying to apply classical mechanics to light, and unfortunately that's not how nature behaves.

 

There is no ether!!!

 

Now there's a statement, even Einstein and Newton would not say that. It merely is not in their equations (well not obviously but intrinsically) and rightly so as it was not needed... that does not mean they didn't believe it existed!!!

 

As for the doppler effect, absolutely, but frequency can change based on the density of the medium light travels through too!!!

 

I maintain that light speed will not be c to an observer moving away from a light source... moving towards it, probably yes because their own time reference will speed up to compensate for the addition of the their own speed + the speed of the light coming towards them.

Edited September 2, 2009 by sananda
Consecutive posts merged.

[The Clairvoyant]

 

the lads who were coming up with the stuff we take for granted today were making crap up to fit formulas.

 

Is this common in the science world then ? If so, why ? And who's out there trying to stop it ?

[sananda]

Is this common in the science world then ? If so, why ? And who's out there trying to stop it ?

 

if you call it a constant or a transform you get away with it, it happened a lot more in the past when there was a lot less people's minds to change

 

LOL

[iNow]

I swear to Thor, we're being bombarded with 50-kiloton thermostupid above.

 

If you guys want to improve yourselves, and truly learn and educate yourself about reality, then please ask questions and our community will help you to attain answers. However, if your sole intent is to run around like a bunch of spastic children spouting ridiculous nonsense that makes you look like paste-eaters and would cause your parents to be ashamed, then please go away.

[mooeypoo]

it actually did come out of someone's orifice...

 

the lads who were coming up with the stuff we take for granted today were making crap up to fit formulas.

 

oh and this is the speculations board, surely I'm free to speculate here LOL

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The speculation board has rules. You are expected to support your speculations with actual scientifically valid evidence.

 

What you have so far is gobblygook babble. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't take yourself seriously?

 

There is no ether!!!

 

Now there's a statement, even Einstein and Newton would not say that. It merely is not in their equations (well not obviously but intrinsically) and rightly so as it was not needed... that does not mean they didn't believe it existed!!!

Einstein might not have said that, but he showed it in his mathematical formulas. Perhaps you should go over them.

 

As for the doppler effect, absolutely, but frequency can change based on the density of the medium light travels through too!!!

Prove it. Show evidence, something. Stop talking empty silliness and start basing your claims on actual science. Beyond the fact that you're practically interfering with actually interesting scientific experiments, you're also doing absolutely no justice to your own hypothesis, as no one will take any of this seriously if you claim to speak out of your own orifice.

 

I recommend you read our rules, sanandra, we are being very patient so far with your empty claims - those are against our rules of conduct. Put up some evidence or stop claiming you know better than everyone else who actually (guess what) have evidence.

 

 

 

I maintain that light speed will not be c to an observer moving away from a light source... moving towards it, probably yes because their own time reference will speed up to compensate for the addition of the their own speed + the speed of the light coming towards them.

You can maintain that cows coo and birds plop. So what? Until you provide some sort of VALID evidence, predictions, scientific methodology, you're not even raising a vaild scientific HYPOTHESIS. It's not even there, sanandra.

 

You're so certain you're right, how about you go the tiny extra step to provide us with something a bit more concrete than "BUT EVERYONE ELSE SAY STUFF I DONT UNDERSTAND THEY MUST BE WRONG!" claims. Who knows, you might end up learning some new science, and perhaps teaching us some.

 

 

I'm open minded, but I am not as open minded as to let my brain fall out. I suggest you follow that.

 

And read our rules.

 

~moo

[sananda]

ah mooey, don't get excited because I have an opinion... obviously it offends you because it could be true and if that was the case your world would come crashing down around you.

 

By the way it was their oral orifice I was talking about... how crude!

[swansont]

the lads who were coming up with the stuff we take for granted today were making crap up to fit formulas.

 

That's a necessary part of science. Formulas allow us to make specific predictions, and make attempts at falsification possible.

 

So when you say

 

frequency can change based on the density of the medium light travels through too

 

it means very little until you make a prediction of how much the light will slow down, under a very specific set of circumstances, so that the idea can be tested. Anyone can blather "the ether is real!"

[The Clairvoyant]

I swear to Thor, we're being bombarded with 50-kiloton thermostupid above.

 

If you guys want to improve yourselves, and truly learn and educate yourself about reality, then please ask questions and our community will help you to attain answers. However, if your sole intent is to run around like a bunch of spastic children spouting ridiculous nonsense that makes you look like paste-eaters and would cause your parents to be ashamed, then please go away.

 

Strewth, the science world aint exactly pc is it.

 

1. "Ask questions and our community will help you". Well, that's only a maybe. You might in fact hinder my progress. First things first, I need to know what questions to ask and who i'm asking. What questions comes later, firstly I want to understand who i'm talking to.

 

2. Using a label of "spastic children" says a lot about you. It says you're stuck in a box with a head full of equations but know nothing at all about the world you live in. One day when you open your eyes you may just get it. Hopefully it will be before your reach your deathbed.

 

3. "Ridiculous nonsense". I'm new to science, I will ask daft questions, which hopefully you will be able to give a straightforward answer. The T and C's do not say that you have to have a phd in physics to be a member. All people learn differently, not everyone is the same as you. After working in Education for the last 10 years I now know how I learn best and can make my learning efficient. Some of my old schoolteachers used to surpress and belittle the less able of their students. I now know those teachers were lazy and incompetent.

 

4. "Your sole intent". I have one sole intent and that is to learn. You can help me if you want but if you are going to come up with the same patronising, rude, insulting and downright nauseous drivel again then I suggest it's you who should 'go away'.

[Klaynos]

iNow, comments like that help no one, and are derogetory, please do not express you views like that. The Clairvoyant, I'd assume iNow's comments were directed more towards sananda who is preaching his own ideas with no backing.

 

I will address one of your other points The Clairvoyant, modern science, and most of all physics is all about equations and maths and has been for a very long time. Maths gives us the ability to make accurate predictions from simple assumptions. This is the ONLY way you can accurately compare your ideas to reality.

[swansont]

Is this common in the science world then ? If so, why ? And who's out there trying to stop it ?

 

Keep in mind that sananda's views are his/her own, and are not representative of the greater science community's.

[<Ragnarok>]

I could be like wrong here. But if I'm not mistaken E=mc^2 is m=mass c= speed of light ^2= speed of light squared.? I mean i thought it was that simple.?

[insane_alien]

its not quite. E=mc^2 is a special case of a slightly more complex equation and only applies when an object is at rest.

 

but your definitions are correct.

[iNow]

E=mc^2 is a special case of a slightly more complex equation and only applies when an object is at rest.

Precisely. The aforementioned (more complex) equation (which is not a "special case"):

 

[math]E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2[/math]

[mooeypoo]

Exactly that. One more thing worth mentioning is that the definitions are very important to clarify. That is, in the context of relativity, what we usually refer to as "mass" is no longer an absolute unchanging property of the object. We solve this by relating to the objects "rest mass" - which is the mass the object has in the "rest" frame (that is, in a frame where the object is stationary).

 

Also, "p" in this context is different too. It is momentum, but not the same way we use it in non relativistic physics. This relativistic momentum has an additional relativistic "Lorentz Factor":

 

[math]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

 

So, while classical physics defines momentum as [math]p=mv[/math], relativistic momentum is defined as [math]p=\gamma m_0 v = \frac{m_0 v}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

 

So when we see the "m", "p" and so on, when we relate to it in relativity context, we have to make sure we are using the proper relativistic definitions.

 

This is a good reference for the basic definitions and math behind relativistic energy: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/releng.html

[Janus]

 

I maintain that light speed will not be c to an observer moving away from a light source... moving towards it, probably yes because their own time reference will speed up to compensate for the addition of the their own speed + the speed of the light coming towards them.

 

 

Ib order for that to be true, there would have to be a fixed, absolute frame of rest against with one measures their speed.

 

But, modern day particle acclerators bely that assumption. Consider this. If there is a fixed frame of rest, the Earth moves with respect to it. Today's particle accelerators can get electrons up to very high fractions of c. If the particle accelerator is pointed in the direction of the Earth's motion these two velocities will be added together. If it is pointing in the opposite direction, you will get the difference for the final velocity of the electron. This woud mean that particle accelerators would get different results, depending upon which direction they were facing. They don't. No matter what direction they point they get exactly the same results for any particles moving at the same speed with respect to the Earth.

[The Clairvoyant]

I will address one of your other points The Clairvoyant, modern science, and most of all physics is all about equations and maths and has been for a very long time. Maths gives us the ability to make accurate predictions from simple assumptions .

 

Yes, I do understand that this seems to be the viewpoint of scientists on this board. At the moment I understand but don't necessarily agree

 

This is the ONLY way you can accurately compare your ideas to reality.

 

I don't think this is the ONLY way. An idea can create something without the need for mathematics (elsewhere i've used the example of 'the wheel'). However I do take on board the comments about understanding how science has evolved will save me time in the future.

 

It's a difficult one for me. I do understand where you're all coming from and the consistency and passion in your responses convinces me that you truly believe in what you are saying and that you genuinely believe you are helping me by being so forceful. On the other hand i'm steadily building a picture in mind that scientists seem to be bogged down in theory and resistant to the fact that an open mind can allow the spark (or the 'fluke' as it was called elsewhere). Does your mind allow the spark when you are bogged down in theory ? I'd be interested as to what everyone thinks about that and may start a thread on it after i've lurked the forum a bit more as I don't want this thread to go off on a tangent.

 

I'll let you all get on with it now !

[mooeypoo]

The Clairvoyant, take into account that the request for math is not an empty one. This isn't just us saying that the mathematics makes physics "clearer" or "more scientific" or sounding better, the point in mathematics is to provide the predictions!

 

Think of it this way: A physical theory explains that objects are attracted to one another by the force of gravity. Great. I predict that when I drop an apple from some X feet height, it will fall to the ground and not fly up to the sky. In that aspect, my theory is predictive, indeed.

 

But that's not the actual predictive powre. The POWERFUL prediction comes when I tell you how many seconds PRECISELY it would take for an apple to fall X amount of feet in certain environments (vacuum, no vacuum, etc). *THAT* is the predictive power that can tell me if my theory has any use to it and has merit or not.

 

That's what maths gives me.

 

You don't have to have the math to have a proper physical hypothesis, but eventually this hypothesis will have to have some mathematical backing if it is to be predictive and represent reality properly.

 

~moo

[The Clairvoyant]

The Clairvoyant, take into account that the request for math is not an empty one.

 

I never thought it was an empty one, just that the mathematics might be stifling the awareness of the spark.

 

This isn't just us saying that the mathematics makes physics "clearer" or "more scientific" or sounding better, the point in mathematics is to provide the predictions!.

 

Once again, I do get your point.

 

 

Think of it this way: A physical theory explains that objects are attracted to one another by the force of gravity. Great. I predict that when I drop an apple from some X feet height, it will fall to the ground and not fly up to the sky. In that aspect, my theory is predictive, indeed.

 

But that's not the actual predictive powre. The POWERFUL prediction comes when I tell you how many seconds PRECISELY it would take for an apple to fall X amount of feet in certain environments (vacuum, no vacuum, etc). *THAT* is the predictive power that can tell me if my theory has any use to it and has merit or not.

 

That's what maths gives me.

 

You don't have to have the math to have a proper physical hypothesis, but eventually this hypothesis will have to have some mathematical backing if it is to be predictive and represent reality properly.

 

~moo

 

But without you discovering that the apple will fall to the ground and not fly up to the sky the mathematics would be useless wouldn't it ?

 

a/ You discover the spark

b/ You develop it through mathematics

 

My thoughts are that if your brain is too focussed on other stuff the ability for it to be primed for being aware of the spark is reduced or stifled somewhat. That's it really, this is what i'm getting my head around at the moment. I do understand your point and hope that you now understand mine. It's for another thread really where somebody could explain to me a little more about how the human brain works at its most efficient within the field of science and discovery. I'm not convinced (yet)that the use of mathematics is the 'be all and end all', the openess of the brain to the discovery is surely just as important. How many easy flukes/sparks are missed because the brain is absorbed elsewhere in the detail of mathematics ?