The Aether Theory of Relativity

[Michael V]

marengo,

I still wait in anticipation of your detailed, and hopefully plain English, reply to my previous post. If you are unable to make your ideas understood, which is the present situation with regards to your literature, then you are unlikely to garner the interest and understanding of others.

In the meantime, I was perusing your "aether pages" and noticed that you utilise the Lorentz Transformation. However, I was unable to locate where you had derived this, presumably I trust, from first principles. The standard relativistic derivation makes use of the principle that two relatively moving observers will measure the speed of the same "light event" to be the same. Obviously, this is physically impossible, so I am curious to know how you have derived the same equation from your physical theory. Such a success would be of great interest to me. Thanks again for your attention.


Michael

[viscount aero]

marengo claims he is happy to explain his theory to anyone interested yet when someone voices interest in the theory marengo does not explain anything. marengo cannot see (refuses to see) that he does not explain his theory in the thread he created about his own theory. marengo does not understand that he withholds information and refuses to account for his claims.

[Sparky]

marengo claims he is happy to explain his theory to anyone interested yet when someone voices interest in the theory marengo does not explain anything. marengo cannot see (refuses to see) that he does not explain his theory in the thread he created about his own theory. marengo does not understand that he withholds information and refuses to account for his claims.

I agree.. Is he a type of troll?

[marengo]

To Michael V
The properties of the Aether are postulates from which Aether physics is constructed.
Postulates cannot be criticised. The test of postulates lie in the theories and their predictions which spring from those postulates. This is a general truth of physics.If those theories work then the postulates remain accepted until the predictions fail in a new test.

Your problem is that you are trying to question postulates. You cannot do that and furthermore there is no point to it.
What you need to question is the logic, the constructions and the maths that are applied to those postulates.

If you are trying to obtain a picture of the Aether in your head, fine but it is not the most important thing to do.
You can consider the Aether as analogous to a material substance like solid iron, etc.
The Aether is postulated to have certain properties which I list. To a large extent these properties are similar to the properties of matter.
I suggest you move on to the electric field.
Consider a charged particle. I dont know what it is and neither does anyone else.
All we know is that it is a source of elevated electric potential (Aether pressure). That pressure is passed outward through the Aether. If you take a thin shell of Aether centered on the charge you will find that for stability the pressure on the side nearest the charge is higher than on the other-side. Thus the pressure diminishes with inverse distance. It is explained in far greater detail in my paper. I am very pleased to hear that you are now reading them.
I believe and hope that the effort will be worthwhile.

[marengo]

Aardwolf
I will never convince you that the effects of relativity actually occur. You must remain unconvinced.

[marengo]

In the meantime, I was perusing your "aether pages" and noticed that you utilise the Lorentz Transformation. However, I was unable to locate where you had derived this, presumably I trust, from first principles. The standard relativistic derivation makes use of the principle that two relatively moving observers will measure the speed of the same "light event" to be the same. Obviously, this is physically impossible, so I am curious to know how you have derived the same equation from your physical theory. Such a success would be of great interest to me. Thanks again for your attention.

The Lorentz Transform eqns are derived from the electric field surround in a moving charge. I think you will find their derivation in the paper on the Electric field. The derivation is extremely simple. I will check on it and if I am wrong will come back to you.
Yes I am right.
The only things you need to realise are that the electric field of a charge is established at the speed of light from the source charge. Secondly that a charge cannot recognise its own field. It requires a second charge to be affected by its field which then 'communicates' its reaction via its own electric field back to the first charge.
Please let me know if you agree with my derivation of the Lorentz Transform eqns or not.

[marengo]

viscount aero,
I hope you are managing to follow my explanations here.

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf
I will never convince you that the effects of relativity actually occur. You must remain unconvinced.

Don't try to convince me just provide some evidence of time dilation. You said there were thousands of such documents.

[marengo]

Don't try to convince me just provide some evidence of time dilation. You said there were thousands of such documents.

I would just like to repeat this quote from the web
'Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!'

I think that your belief is too strong to overturn with mere facts.

[Michael V]

marengo,

It is explained in far greater detail in my paper and I dont understand why you are so reluctant to read them.

I'm afraid that the literature you have produced so far is all but unintelligible. Several people have commented on this.

Have ever read a technical manual?. In my experience they fall into two categories: 1) a text that describes the system in a way that someone with little to no knowledge can understand and gain some degree of expertise, 2) a text that describes the system in a way in which only someone who is already an expert would understand. You literature definitely falls into the latter category.

The properties of the Aether are postulates from which Aether physics is constructed.
Postulates cannot be criticised.

Perhaps they cannot be criticised (and perhaps they can), but surely they can at least be explained in a manner that others, without a direct telepathic link to the author, might understand. At the moment they are just a meaningless list of words. You need to find some way, be long-winded if necessary, to explain what you mean for the benefit of people who are not you.

Since this "aether pressure" appears to be an important facet of your model, the detailed mechanics of that process would seem especially important to detail to a very fine level. How does one aethon apply "pressure" upon another?, etc.:

Can you please explain in more detail:
- what you mean by "a solid matrix"?
- what you mean byaethon particles?
- surely density is a function of numerical occupancy of a spatial volume?
- can you describe the nature of the sub-aether substance?
- how does the aether pressure occur? by what mechanism? what shape ate aethons? what size are aethons? was is their pattern of distribution relative to each other? can you explain in as much detail as you can the mechanical operation of aethon interaction?
- can you explain what you mean by propagation velocity?
- how exactly, in static condition, do aethons take up pressure from their neighbours?
- what do you mean by "internal pressure within the Aether"?
- again, what do you mean "propagation velocity of the Aether"?
- and in as sensible manner as possible, what do you mean by "aether velocity"?


Michael

[Aardwolf]

Don't try to convince me just provide some evidence of time dilation. You said there were thousands of such documents.

I would just like to repeat this quote from the web
'Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!'

I think that your belief is too strong to overturn with mere facts.

That's just a quote. How does that prove anything? I already provided a link to the University of Colorados Neil Ashby article stating GPS cannot be tested for relativity. It's not a sectret that the clocks are adjusted. All atomic clocks drift and need adjusting. Please explain yourself how a clock can be tested for its accuracy when it is being manually adjusted?

[viscount aero]

viscount aero,
I hope you are managing to follow my explanations here.

I will have to (reluctantly) read your whole paper(s) I imagine. I don't understand what you mean by "sub-aether." By the way I believe in the aether and have for years. I don't understand what you mean by aether relativity. But I appreciate your polite responses.

[kevin]

Marengo,
I am confused with You.
I asked certain things earlier in this thread , and Your reply was a definate "NO".
Yet now You are advocating a solid aether similer to iron.

I would offer the thought of an omni present universal substance, that is fixed, perfectly packed, and thus providing a lattice matrix that creation is enabled upon, all enabled across multiple dimensions by an intelligent electrical potential .
That the geometry of that packed STUFF leads to scalar memory bubbles of torroidal form, and that those memory bubbles are unique to the geometry they are created upon, with multiple different dimensions on alternate faces of the STUFF.
And that transfer across from one dimension to another occurs.

You are appearing to demand that You are correct, and that no other theory is allowed.

Kevin

[marengo]

I'm afraid that the literature you have produced so far is all but unintelligible. Several people have commented on this.

Well, I am amazed. But I do take your point seriously.
I find it difficult to see what you, and others, find difficult. After-all the concept of the Aether has been around for 100s of years. I am not re-inventing it. For example, James Clerk Maxwell firmly believed in it. All I am doing is change one of its properties and then re-generate theories from it. Most posters never seem to have heard of it (at which I am most surprised).

I have told you that you cannot question postulates. That point you wish to ignore. OK, I will try to go along with you.For a while.
The Aether is postulated to be a substance, like iron for example. So imagine the whole Universe made of iron.
The difference is that the substance is not made of atoms but of some completely different particle which we may call an aethon for convenience. The aethon is completely unlike any material particle.
Would you call an iron Universe a solid matrix of iron atoms. Yes you would. So just swap the iron atoms for aethons.
Aethons are the 'atoms' of the Aether.
Your description of density is correct.
No, I cant describe the nature of the sub-aether. It is just a more fundamental frame than the Aether. Please bear this in mind. I think that I have moved on a step in physics by my theories. But it is just a step. Do not think that I know everything. There is no point in criticising me for what I dont know. We move one step at a time.
Pressure occurs within iron, does it not? So why not in the Aether. What else do you think are the transients of em waves.

That is enough points answered for now
But I must come back to my main point. YOU ARE ASKING ALL THE WRONG QUESTIONS.
I am forced to repeat this: Postulates cannot be questioned. They can only be tested and found right or wrong.
This applies to every theory, in physics or elsewhere. YOU REALLY MUST TAKE SOME NOTE OF THIS.
But thankyou for your interest.

[marengo]

Kevin, There is no limit to the number of theories which may be invented. But theories are only good if they make successful predictions. Otherwise they are just hot air.
The Aether theory of Relativity predicts relativity effects observed between accelerating bodies (all real bodies are accelerating). Einstein's theory only applies to inertial bodies ie. theoretical bodies.