Gravity field is the aether

[ambros]

No, this is not correct. Einstein discusses a "stationary" frame — he even uses quotes when first discussing this, and at various times afterward. He also discusses another frame, moving at an arbitrary velocity v with respect to the first.

 

Further, he states

 

light (as required by the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in combination with the principle of relativity) is also propagated with velocity c when measured in the moving system.

 

all in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

 

Ok. In any case, my point is that any experiments where measurements are not taken with some velocity relative to ground (airplanes, trains, satellites) can not prove anything about anything simply because "Aether" everyone is talking about is the same thing what we already call 'gravity field'.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation - "Time dilation in transversal motion. The requirement that the speed of light is constant in every inertial reference frame leads to the theory of Special Relativity." -- What I was talking about is mostly known as 'aberration effect' and is fundamental to measuring and analyzing the speed of light.

 

 

=Static sensor ======B ..b1 ..b2 ..b3 ..b4 =====
                    |



                    |                    
E------------------->A-------> Moving emitter

 

Photon emitter 'E' moves from left to right with arbitrary constant velocity.

When E passes over point 'A' it shoots a single photon in the direction of 'B'.

 

Q: The faster E moves, the further away from B(b1, b2, b3..) photon hits the sensor?

 

A: YES, the faster a frame moves, the more the angle in a stationary frame.

 

 

Q: The faster E moves, the more time photon takes to cross AB distance and hits sensor?

 

A: YES/NO?

[swansont]

Q: The faster E moves, the more time photon takes to cross AB distance and hits sensor?

 

A: YES/NO?

 

Yes, if measured in the other frame of reference. Something that the other frame says takes a certain amount of time appears to us to take longer, so their clock must be running slow. We call this time dilation.

[vuquta]

Ok. In any case, my point is that any experiments where measurements are not taken with some velocity relative to ground (airplanes, trains, satellites) can not prove anything about anything simply because "Aether" everyone is talking about is the same thing what we already call 'gravity field'.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation - "Time dilation in transversal motion. The requirement that the speed of light is constant in every inertial reference frame leads to the theory of Special Relativity." -- What I was talking about is mostly known as 'aberration effect' and is fundamental to measuring and analyzing the speed of light.

 

 

=Static sensor ======B ..b1 ..b2 ..b3 ..b4 =====
                    |



                    |                    
E------------------->A-------> Moving emitter

 

Photon emitter 'E' moves from left to right with arbitrary constant velocity.

When E passes over point 'A' it shoots a single photon in the direction of 'B'.

 

Q: The faster E moves, the further away from B(b1, b2, b3..) photon hits the sensor?

 

A: YES, the faster a frame moves, the more the angle in a stationary frame.

 

 

Q: The faster E moves, the more time photon takes to cross AB distance and hits sensor?

 

A: YES/NO?

 

What I was talking about is mostly known as 'aberration effect' and is fundamental to measuring and analyzing the speed of light.

 

Interersting. This is generally used to prove the speed of light is constant in the vacuum of space.

 

Why do you say the gravity field?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, if measured in the other frame of reference. Something that the other frame says takes a certain amount of time appears to us to take longer, so their clock must be running slow. We call this time dilation.

 

Not necessarily. If the setup is like this with O' and T' moving, r the distance between the two:

 

Moving target
T'


   O'
   O

 

such that in the coords of O', T' is located at ((-vγr)/(c(γ+1)), y, 0) then t'=t.

Edited March 29, 2010 by vuquta
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

Not necessarily. If the setup is like this with O' and T' moving, r the distance between the two:

 

Moving target
T'


   O'
   O

 

such that in the coords of O', T' is located at ((-vγr)/(c(γ+1)), y, 0) then t'=t.

 

This thread is for ambros's idea. What part of "keep your own pet ideas in their own thread" is causing you trouble?

[ambros]

I do not mind him at all. It was actually him that made me get involved in this whole discussion. After reading some of his previous threads I thought this was his web page: http://www.proofofabsolutemotion.com/intro.html

 

 

I thought I can simplify the problem so it can be communicated better and I expected he would surely understand what am I talking about since I actually got inspired by that web-page there, but he did not seem to see any connection and that's where I got confused. In any case, he seem to have figured by now and his latest argument is exactly what I was going to say next. But previously, it was funny to see him arguing against me while I actually came to support his views.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why do you say the gravity field?

 

I thought everyone would know about it by now. What year is today?

 

SPEED = DISTANCE/TIME

 

We should never forget this is the only one logical and causal definition. Yes, we can play around with units and re-define everything around the speed of light, but we should never ever forget what velocity really means and what it represents physically.

 

 

I'm talking about Lorentz Relativity and even General Relativity, do they not describe gravity field as an absolute reference frame? -- If time rate changes as you move through gravity potential, than would you not say it is this gravity potential that defines the speed of light by defining the 'rate of velocity' via defining the 'rate of time'? If gravity can influence time-rate at some space, than gravity is what influences, if not completely defines, the speed in that area of space, including the speed of light, right?

 

 

On the side note, I understand why there would be MAXIMUM speed, we have maximum velocity of free fall in any medium, it's called 'terminal velocity', but what I do not understand is who did ever say photons can not go any slower than the speed of light?

[ajb]

I'm talking about Lorentz Relativity and even General Relativity, do they not describe gravity field as an absolute reference frame?

 

In special relativity we have a privileged class of frames (local coordinates) the inertial ones. In general relativity we do not have any privileged classes of coordinates.

 

Of course their maybe coordinates adapted to the situation, but these are defined by the problem and should not be thought of as in any fundamental way as special.

 

So I am at a loss to what you mean in the above statement.

 

-- If time rate changes as you move through gravity potential, than would you not say it is this gravity potential that defines the speed of light by defining the 'rate of velocity' via defining the 'rate of time'? If gravity can influence time-rate at some space, than gravity is what influences, if not completely defines, the speed in that area of space, including the speed of light, right?

 

You should think of the metric as the "gravitational degree of freedom". As metrics define the "distance" in space-time of paths as well as the causal structure. What you have said is ok, if a bit muddled.

 

 

 

but what I do not understand is who did ever say photons can not go any slower than the speed of light?

 

 

In vacua or in a medium?

 

The situations are different.

Edited March 30, 2010 by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

[ambros]

In special relativity we have a privileged class of frames (local coordinates) the inertial ones. In general relativity we do not have any privileged classes of coordinates.

 

Of course their maybe coordinates adapted to the situation, but these are defined by the problem and should not be thought of as in any fundamental way as special.

 

So I am at a loss to what you mean in the above statement.

 

You should think of the metric as the "gravitational degree of freedom". As metrics define the "distance" in space-time of paths as well as the causal structure. What you have said is ok, if a bit muddled.

 

I think we understand each other pretty well, considering there are many vague terms involved, that the subject is complicated and that I am not completely explaining my meanings.

 

It's about interpretation, which makes it all more ambiguous, so in short I believe GR is opposite to SR and is compatible with LR, but then LR can not be easily distinguished from SR... which makes it all even more complicated, very hard to differentiate and argue about.

 

I do not have any real point to make about it.

 

 

 

In vacua or in a medium?

 

The situations are different.

 

Perhaps, it depends, and this is where things start to get interesting.

 

The question is whether magnetic and electric constant are properties of the "vacuum", or properties of quanta/particles, i.e. their electric and magnetic fields and forces. If vacuum permittivity and permeability are not particle properties, if they are really the properties of "vacuum", then in the name of logic this "vacuum" no longer qualifies as "vacua" but as "medium".