"The Properties of the Aether"
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Tahc - 25 Mar 2007 13:51 GMT "The Properties of the Aether"
Of course there is no such thing as the Aether, it says so right here in the book that the Aether has been proven not to exist. Unfortunately for the academic elite, such a proof does not exist. As Dr. Einstein said, "remember gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we have merely proven that we do not need it (for computations)"! Actually, by combining the Lorentz Transformations provided by Special Relativity to obtain the Lorentz Transformation for velocity and adding a simple and physically realizable thought experiment, the existence of an absolute rigid velocity reference frame is readily proven. See http://winsteinhoax.com/posting36.htm.
The classical Aether was postulated as a medium which allowed the transmission of light, which was known to be a wave, through space. When attempts were made to measure our velocity though the alleged medium the result was failure. In 1903, Fitzgerald and Larmor provided the Lorentz Transformations for Length and Time which were later mathematically derived by Dr. Einstein in the Special Theory of Relativity. Both of these approaches (which are actually identical) answered the dilemma posed by the failure of the Michelson-Morely experiment to measure our absolute velocity.
Accepting the Aether as the basic component of space answers many, if not all, of the problems associated with modern physics. The Aether was postulated to explain how light, which was known to be a wave, could propagate through empty space. As shown by Maxwell's Equations, a light wave consisted of a cyclical interchange of energy between orthogonal electromagnetic fields in a plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation and was therefore a shear wave. Since all known waves require a medium for propagation and shear waves cannot propagate through a fluid, it was accepted that the medium (the Aether) must be a solid.
Later work suggested that light was composed of particles, which could travel without a medium, rather than as a wave. It is easy to show, however, that electromagnetic waves are composed of one cycle "pings" of an electromagnetic energy traveling in synchronism. <A href="posting19.htm">Posting 19</A><font size=+1> The velocity of such a wave and of photons is determined by the permeability and dielectric constant of space and, if space has such properties, it cannot be merely a geometric construct as modern physics would have one believe. Attempting to retain space as a geometric concept devoid of an Aether forced Dirac to a invent a space filled with negative energy in order to make his mathematical explanation of the creation of electron-positron pairs from the energy of a high energy photon. One might wonder haw that space filled with "negative energy" is any different from a space filled with the classical Aether.
If the Aether is a solid, then two questions must be answered. What is the Nature of that solid and how do "solid" particles (e.g.- matter) travel through it. The first question is easily answered by looking at the results of cosmological observations. If the "solid" Aether is composed of minute granules, akin to rice pudding, then there should be evidence of chromatic dispersion of the light from distant objects analogous to the reddening of Sunlight as it passes through the air molecules of our atmosphere. If the "solid" Aether discontinuous, akin to jello, then no such dispersion would occur. To date no chromatic dispersion or light from distant objects seems to have been reported and it seems safe to assert that the Aether is a continuous solid.
One is then left with the question of how solid matter can pass through a solid Aether. The answer which follows is that material particles are not solid but are actually standing waves (probably electromagnetic). It should be noted that the work of de Broglie and the theoretical and physical experiments which followed established the wavelike properties of material particles early in the 20th century. Such waves would have no more trouble passing through the Aether than does light. (The nature of particles including the quarks which compose protons and neutrons etc. is discussed in http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm and in a posting to follow.
The Aether must be composed of two materials in proximity, a positive electric field and a negative electric field. (The use of the word field rather than charge is deliberate since it is quite possible that the materials are continuous rather than discrete as is the charge of electrons.) The application of a sufficiently strong electromagnetic field might then be expected to separate those materials to form an electron-positron pair.
One more property that the Aether must have if one is to account for gravity is that the proximity of energy causes a reduction in the ABSOLUTE velocity of light. (The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity shows that since the velocity of light is constant when measured locally, it cannot be constant in ABSOLUTE terms.)
The source material for this posting may be found in http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was provided.
Dr. V I Plankenstein - 25 Mar 2007 21:25 GMT Man Old As Coal said :
> Accepting the Aether as the basic component of space answers many, if > not all, of the problems associated with modern physics. The Aether was > postulated to explain how light, which was known to be a wave, could > propagate through empty space. The Aether is space itself you silly sh.ts - if you cant see that then you must be bee elle eye & dee.
nuny@bid.ness - 26 Mar 2007 03:27 GMT On Mar 25, 1:25 pm, "Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci> wrote:
> Man Old As Coal said : > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The Aether is space itself you silly sh.ts - if you cant see that then you > must be bee elle eye & dee. Lemme give you a hint; when you see a 300+ line post sent by a name that actually makes a word backwards, it's this same "einsteinhoax" jackass. And BTW he NEVER reads, much less responds to, replies. That way he can continue his claim that there have never been substanital rebuttals.
Mark L. Fergerson
Dr. V I Plankenstein - 26 Mar 2007 03:42 GMT > > Man Old As Coal said : > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mark L. Fergerson That man/woman/robot is a ridiculous troll.
I've seen this same post probably 500 times. I just dont get it. There is no creativity being exhibited by this poster. Quite distressing.
globarr@yahoo.com - 26 Mar 2007 04:18 GMT < Deletes by O'Barr>
> I've seen this same post probably 500 times. I just dont get it. There is no > creativity being exhibited by this poster. Quite distressing. Comments by O'Barr: I understand the frustration of this individual. He has a lot of truth to what he says, yet he never gets back any responsible responses. What should one do when this occurs? Some just drop the subject, and go to something elsel.
This individual is correct in many ways: There really is an ether. That is, there really is a medium in which the movements of photons are controlled. And yes, this medium means that there is an absolute reference frame, exactly as called for in LET. And yes, if one accepts a contraction of length with velocity in this ether, and a slower clock with velocity in this ether, such assumptions produce the exact same results as is found in SR. And at the present time, there is no known test that can make a discrimination or a distinction between these two approaches. Our present science is dishonest when they are not willing to agree with all this. And because of this dishonesty. then those who believe in an ether are not able to have the discussions that should be taking place. Only Tom Roberts, from time to time, has said some of the things that are correct about what we really know in these areas.
Having said all this, I do not agree with everything being said by this individual. There really are particles of mass that move in our universe. They are not all waves. They are not all waves made out of the material that composes the ether. And the ether is not a rigid solid. The transverse mode (or circular mode that also exists) is not dependent upon a solid. There are motions in a fluid (which includes even a gas) where the motion, under stable conditions, results in a serpetine motion that appears to be a wave. These waves are mathematically similar, but physically, they do not require a medium that has within it any mutual forces or internal potential energy relationship. It is a most interesting situation, but it works. At least it works on the computer.
Thanks for reading. Gerald.
luke.saul@space.unibe.ch - 26 Apr 2007 14:11 GMT On Mar 26, 5:18 am, glob...@yahoo.com wrote:
> < Deletes by O'Barr> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > means that there is an absolute reference frame, exactly as > called for in LET. Please excuse my late reply to this thread.
What is this "absolute" reference frame you speak of? Is no the scientist free to draw his coordinates in any frame she chooses? Reference frames are by nature relative, hence the word "reference".. to show what the coordinates are relative to.
> And yes, if one accepts a contraction > of length with velocity in thisether, and a slower clock [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that move in our universe. They are not all waves. They are > not all waves made out of the material that composes the ether As I understand it, mass is a bulk property of motions of the space- time medium (quantum vacuum if you prefer). What other entities are you suggesting to exist? [..]
Ciao -
GSS - 26 Apr 2007 18:32 GMT On Apr 26, 6:11 pm, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
> On Mar 26, 5:18 am, glob...@yahoo.com wrote: ......
> > Comments by O'Barr: > > I understand the frustration of this individual. He has a lot of [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Ciao - In this regard let me express my viewpoint concerning the subject issue and the associated absolute reference frame.
Empty Space, Aether or Vacuum ----------------------------- There are two notions of space in vogue. The first notion is of a coordinate space and the second is that of physical space. Whereas the metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic impedance are only associated with physical space. The notions of physical space, empty space, vacuum, aether and their modern reincarnation the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity - call it by any name. It is said that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet. For detailed discussion of this issue kindly refer to, http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf
Notion of Universal Reference Frame ----------------------------------- The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined as a non- rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with respect to the 'Center of Mass' of the Universe. We know that the origin of International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF or BCRF) is fixed at the barycenter or the center of mass of the solar system. If we could locate a point O in ICRF such that O is fixed with respect to the center of mass of our Universe, then a celestial reference frame with its origin at O could be referred as the Universal Reference Frame. For this we need to determine the velocity of O in ICRF which will lead us to determine the velocity of ICRF in the Universal Reference Frame. For establishing the Universal Reference Frame with reference to ICRF, we don't need to establish the location of the center of mass of the Universe. *The speed of light is an isotropic constant c and the measures of distance and time are absolute in this frame.* This Universal or Absolute reference frame can be experimentally established with the use of available technology. For details kindly refer to, http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
GSS
luke.saul@space.unibe.ch - 26 Apr 2007 23:17 GMT > On Apr 26, 6:11 pm, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with respect > to the 'Center of Mass' of the Universe. [..] Sorry, but this makes no sense to me already. What is "absoulte" about choosing a specific origin in which measurements are relative to? In this case you are using a relative space, space that is relative to an origin fixed with respect to the 'Center of Mass' of the Universe.
Why do you think the word "absoulte" is appropriate for measurements that you explicitly state are relative to a choice of reference frame?
This may be an appropriate frame of reference for certain calculations, but I don't think the word "absolute" has any place here.
Ciao -
GSS - 27 Apr 2007 05:21 GMT On Apr 27, 3:17 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
>> On Apr 26, 6:11 pm, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote: >> ...... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Ciao - There are two main reasons for using the term 'absolute' for certain reference frames and the measurements made therein.
First reason is simple, 'not relative' implies 'absolute'.
Let us consider a closed volume V of space containing a system of N particles of matter in all possible physical states. We consider the closed volume of space in the sense that there is no transfer of mass or energy across the boundary surface of this volume and the enclosed particles do not experience any significant force or interaction from outside this volume. Let point S be the center of mass of these N particles and let G be a non-rotating Cartesian coordinate reference frame with its origin located at point S. In this reference frame G, let the positions of all N particles be defined to be certain function of time (xi(t), yi(t), zi(t)), provided they remain bounded within the closed volume V. Since G is a reference frame with origin at the center of mass of the enclosed N particles, total momentum of all of its domain particles is zero.
Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles will be conserved. We may refer this set of N particles to any coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain measure numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that must not alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature distribution) or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within the closed volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated as a physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference frames.
Any reference frame within this closed volume V, in which the center of mass of the enclosed particles is at rest, may be considered as an absolute reference frame because (a) The total momentum of the enclosed system of particles is zero in this reference frame. (b) And the total mass-energy content of the enclosed system of particles is absolute minimum in this reference frame.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/relative_measurement.htm
Second reason for the absolute reference frame is a bit intricate. That is, contrary to the postulates of relativity, the speed of light propagation (in vacuum) is a universal constant c only in the absolute reference frame (in which the center of mass of the Universe is at rest) and not in all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion. Let me illustrate this point with an example.
Just for illustration, consider a ground station (A) in signal communication with a Pioneer type spacecraft (B) at an approximate distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) along with data processors are used at both ends (A and B) for signal communication. Further assume that at an instant of time Ta_t a coded signal pulse is transmitted from station A towards B (uplink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t. Let this signal pulse reach the spacecraft B at an instant of time Tb_r (as measured by the atomic clock of B). Assume that at a subsequent instant of time Tb_t another coded signal pulse is transmitted from spacecraft B towards station A (downlink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t, Tb_r and Tb_t. Let this downlink signal pulse reach ground station A at an instant of time Ta_r. From this data, the data processor at A will compute two intervals of time, first the uplink signal propagation time Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t and second the downlink signal propagation time Td = Ta_r - Tb_t.
Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and velocities are done in a particular Celestial Reference Frame (K) in which the speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and both A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 along the direction AB as shown. . . D . A.........................B . ----->V1 ----->V1 . Therefore, c*Tu = D + V1*Tu ...(1) and c*Td = D - V1*Td ...(2) That is, Tu = D/(c-V1) ...(3) and Td = D/(c+V1) ...(4) Hence, V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td) ...(5)
That means from the measured data of uplink (Tu) and downlink (Td) signal propagation times we can compute the common velocity V1 which is a unique value. It is quite obvious that in any other inertial reference frame K1 which is known to be moving at a uniform relative velocity (along AB) with respect to K, the common velocity of A and B along AB cannot be the same value V1 as observed in K. This proves that (from equation (5)) the speed of light (or signal propagation) cannot be the same value in K and K1. http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/reference_frame.htm
GSS
luke.saul@space.unibe.ch - 30 Apr 2007 16:38 GMT > On Apr 27, 3:17 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > (b) And the total mass-energy content of the enclosed system of > particles is absolute minimum in this reference frame. Thanks for your reply. So, the word "absolute" is used because certain quantities you chose are equal to zero in that frame? Your coordinate system is explicitly relative to a certain frame of reference and the energy and momentum are conserved in any reference frame.
Suppose you are concerned with the dynamics of one particular particle, say one you lived on. Would choosing the rest frame of that particle as a coordinate system be somehow.. incorrect?
> Second reason for the absolute reference frame is a bit intricate. > That is, contrary to the postulates of relativity, the speed of light [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that > identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) Likely you need to consider the synchronization procedure in more detail, but I will keep reading for now.
> along with > data processors are used at both ends (A and B) for signal [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > that (from equation (5)) the speed of light (or signal propagation) > cannot be the same value in K and K1. Sounds good. I like the way you eliminate the distance D in the expression for V1. However...
First, lets ignore any relative motion of Pioneer and Earth during this experiment, assuming that can be dealt with later or is small enough to ignore.
Now, the problem is only the offset of the clocks. When you say they have been "previously synchronized", I can only guess that you mean they were synchronized together and then moved apart. While they are moving apart, one is experiencing slightly different electromagnetic conditions than the other and ticks at a different rate, due to what you might prefer to call an "aether wind", though is commonly today referred to as "relativistic time dilation".
So, there is an additional offset in the reading that will be sent down. This offset works out to be independent of the velocity at which the clocks are separated, but depends on the distance that they are separated. The offset also depends on your V1. It winds up being exactly the same offset as you would expect if you synchronized your clocks using the Einstein synch. procedure.
Try to include this offset in your calculations.
In any case, the experiment you predict is similar to the MMX in that your goal is to determine the motion of the rest frame of the electromagnetic medium relative to the laboratory. Even if you could succeed with this (most people think it is impossible), it still wouldn't be an absolute reference frame!! Certainly this would be an extremely important and useful discovery, but again your choice of coordinate system relative to this rest frame is arbitrary and nothing about the combination of words "absolute space" will make more sense.
Ciao -
|
|
|