The Aether Theory of Relativity

[viscount aero]

That isn't a test. That is a thought experiment only, just as what Einstein's theory largely is--an elaborate (and highly innovative) thought experiment. Yes that is a kind of a test. But you have done no physical test. Nor has anyone done a test for relativity who has flown atomic clocks on planes. This test cannot be actually done because each local inertial reference frame is subjective whereby the relative observations for each LIF are true for each LIF--therefore the "remote" and "local" reference frame is the same for every observer. Einstein himself concluded that "every reference frame has its own particular time. Unless we consider the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."

What do you mean it is not a test. I have just taken two identical clocks and tried it out. OK, thats not quite true. I dont have clocks accurate enough to measure the small difference. But if I did have then I could do it. Hafele and Keating did it.

The rest of your quote is pure muddle.One does not need to concern yourself with IRFs. None exist on Earth anyway.
You seem to be allowing Einstein to confuse you. I thought you did not agree with him.

I don't agree with Einstein. Neither do you. Therefore on that part we both agree. I can talk about relativity and its aspects yet not agree with it. I have been doing that for pages herein.

I am restating what Einstein's relativity proposes to set up the fallacy of the clock experiments. I'm not promoting the validity of relativity. I'm refuting it. And I'm starting with the HK experiment.

Relativity is LIF-based--everything is subjective in its own time. I am then presenting the HK clocks/planes premise and stating that it could have never tested for relativity in the first place because relativity cannot be objectively tested for. Surely the scientists and Einstein himself must have considered this?

[viscount aero]

Therefore which clock is absolutely slower or faster? There is no answer. They are both simultaneously the same condition to each other. Each reference frame is both inertial and non-inertial to each other----a paradox which cannot be reconciled physically.

Einstein states there is no absolute frame.

Yes I know. I've been making that point for several posts.

I say there is but you cant detect it.

Ok. That's your opinion. Why can't you detect an absolute state?

So one cannot measure anything in absolute terms.

According to Einstein that is true, insofar as time.

IRFs dont come into it. There are just two clocks and all you do is read them.

You must consider that your videos reveal absolutely nothing as they are currently presented. How do you arrive at absolute reference frames in your aether theory? If there is only an absolute state then nothing is relative.

This is ironic to classical relativity in that it actually does rely on an absolute state: light speed. Relativity entirely hinges upon c being constant and absolute. Ironic yes?

I have never known a man make the reading of two clocks as difficult as you do. You seem to be in a complete state of confusion.

About the HK experiment? I don't think so. The HK experiment is bunk. That is all I have been discussing about clocks for pages and pages. HK didn't test for relativity. They thought they were but they were not. The people involved were clearly smart and intelligent and must have surely considered that according to the very thing they were testing for they wouldn't have been able to test for it in the first place. Relativity can only largely remain a thought experiment. LIFs are subjective in Einstein's relativity. The HK experiment was about Einstein's relativity, not yours.

[Michael V]

viscount aero,

If there is only an absolute state then nothing is relative.

This is the corner that aether relativity paints itself into.

This is ironic to classical relativity in that it actually does rely on an absolute state: light speed. Relativity entirely hinges upon c being constant and absolute. Ironic yes?

Not sure what you mean by "classical relativity", but if you mean Einsteinian, then no, you are mistaken. Einstein's relativity is based on the constant measurement of c. In a physical universe this is quite obviously impossible. But in a mathematical model "time" and distance are just variables that can be freely adjusted.

In a physical universe where the speed of light is absolute, then time and distance must also be absolute. Unfortunately, all matter in the universe is travelling and in a state of acceleration, so the absolute measurement of time and distance is impossible.


Michael

[viscount aero]

viscount aero,

If there is only an absolute state then nothing is relative.

This is the corner that aether relativity paints itself into.

Ok thank you. Finally we're getting somewhere besides me just telling marengo how he is a challenged "savant" who doesn't relate to English language use.

This is ironic to classical relativity in that it actually does rely on an absolute state: light speed. Relativity entirely hinges upon c being constant and absolute. Ironic yes?

Not sure what you mean by "classical relativity", but if you mean Einsteinian, then no, you are mistaken.

Einsteinian.

Einstein's relativity is based on the constant measurement of c.

What does that mean? How does that differ from a constant c? You are saying c is not a constant in relativity? C cannot be violated. Otherwise we have no Einsteinian relativity. How am I incorrect in this reasoning?

Per your reasoning I can constantly measure the high and low tides and they will change and my measurements will differ from minute to minute whereas c remains the same.

In a physical universe this is quite obviously impossible.

What is impossible?

But in a mathematical model "time" and distance are just variables that can be freely adjusted.

Correct. It need not be actually real or physical.

In a physical universe where the speed of light is absolute, then time and distance must also be absolute.

In Einsteinian relativity the speed of c is absolute. You're saying this is not true as postulated by Einstein?

Unfortunately, all matter in the universe is travelling and in a state of acceleration, so the absolute measurement of time and distance is impossible.

No and yes? I don't think everything is accelerating. Things can sit still or coast relative to other objects but not necessarily undergo constant acceleration. How do you arrive at a constant acceleration for everything?

[Aardwolf]

Then please explain exactly why A's run faster and B's run slower. Under what circumstance did that happen because A separated from B and then reunited at exactly the same rate and duration as B separated from and then reunited with A.

Why do I have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again?

When I introduced the 2 clock situation I explained that they took different journeys.
Hence one journey is longer than the other.

Whatever journey clock A observes clock B to take, will be exactly the same (mirrored) as the journey that clock B observers clock A to take. They can only observe each other and have no other fixed reference point to use to determine anything else. So, exactly how do you determine which clock ran fast and which clock ran slow?

[Aardwolf]

Indeed. Yet you keep insisting that it is the mass that increased contrary to all the evidence because it fits your theory, rather than accept the probability it was simply energy transferred from the 40,000,000 watt accelerator to the particles.

Aardwolf, you are still trying to do away with the mass/energy relationship in order to support your false beliefs.
Give it up man. You cant turn the whole world upside down merely so you dont have to change your mind.

Insisting that the electromagnetic energy input ultimately increases the mass, and then converts that mass into energy is the religious belief you cant let go of considering there is no evidence to support this process, only theory.

I prefer to accept the evidence as it's presented. If that unfortunately falsifies your theory then you need to go back to the drawing board.

[Aardwolf]

So the LHC scientists are lying. Mass doesn't exist and neither does Time. The whole world is wrong or telling fibs but you and Solar, Aardwolf etc are correct.

Where did I say mass and time didn't exist?

If you think I am mistaken regarding my posts please tell me and/or provide a link to the piece of equipment at CERN which directly measures the mass of the particles.

[viscount aero]

Then please explain exactly why A's run faster and B's run slower. Under what circumstance did that happen because A separated from B and then reunited at exactly the same rate and duration as B separated from and then reunited with A.

Why do I have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again?

When I introduced the 2 clock situation I explained that they took different journeys.
Hence one journey is longer than the other.

Whatever journey clock A observes clock B to take, will be exactly the same (mirrored) as the journey that clock B observers clock A to take. They can only observe each other and have no other fixed reference point to use to determine anything else. So, exactly how do you determine which clock ran fast and which clock ran slow?

This is exactly why the HK experiment proved nothing about relativity theory except that the test didn't provide a proper test for it. Unless I am missing something pivotal about relativity theory the HK test was erroneous.

[Aardwolf]

Einstein states there is no absolute frame. I say there is but you cant detect it.

If so how is it possible for GPS to work as you say? Every clock is adjusted by exactly the same amount but none of them are travelling at the same velocity through an absolute frame. GPS is argued by relativists as being proof that there is no preferred frame. You cant have it both ways.

Also, is it your belief that every GPS clock has taken the same journey into orbit (so that according to your thought experiment they can be synchronised)? Even the ones launched from different sites?

[Michael V]

viscount aero,

In Einsteinian relativity the speed of c is absolute. You're saying this is not true as postulated by Einstein?

No mate, in Einsteinian relativity, the speed of c is relative and constant. Einstein postulated that light-signals travel at c, relative to all observers. Personally, I don't see how this is not a definition of magic.

In order for all observers to calculate (i.e. measure) the same relative speed for light-signals, they need to adjust the measurement of time and distance. For example, a muon doesn't travel 100km from the top of the atmosphere to the ground, it travels say 10km, along with a slowed down rate of time - note: it's not only the muon (which is actually an electron) that is length contracted, it's also the distance it has to travel, none of which has anything to do with the squashing of electron orbits as stated by Lorentzian and "Aether Physics" relativity. Einsteinian relativity says that a body's velocity relative to other bodies somehow changes both the physical characteristics of the universe and the observed experience of it, so that Maxwell's equations can stay constant at all relative velocities of matter.


Michael

[viscount aero]

viscount aero,

In Einsteinian relativity the speed of c is absolute. You're saying this is not true as postulated by Einstein?

No mate, in Einsteinian relativity, the speed of c is relative and constant. Einstein postulated that light-signals travel at c, relative to all observers. Personally, I don't see how this is not a definition of magic.

In order for all observers to calculate (i.e. measure) the same relative speed for light-signals, they need to adjust the measurement of time and distance. For example, a muon doesn't travel 100km from the top of the atmosphere to the ground, it travels say 10km, along with a slowed down rate of time - note: it's not only the muon (which is actually an electron) that is length contracted, it's also the distance it has to travel, none of which has anything to do with the squashing of electron orbits as stated by Lorentzian and "Aether Physics" relativity. Einsteinian relativity says that a body's velocity relative to other bodies somehow changes both the physical characteristics of the universe and the observed experience of it, so that Maxwell's equations can stay constant at all relative velocities of matter.


Michael

Maybe explain that differently as 'relative" and "constant" are contradictory terms. That's like saying "he was a young old man." I thought because c must remain constant (300,000 km/s) then everything must alter around it, hence, the idea of length contraction and time dilation. Your explanation above is confusing because you mention length contraction and time dilation but you say that c is "relative". In other words, if c is "relative" how is it constant and fixed? It is everything else that changes around it to keep c the same speed. Per relativity were I a fixed light house or a jet plane traveling at Mach 1 or a space craft nearing a fraction of c, c would remain the same (fixed) for all. From my understanding the entire premise behind relativity, the main one, is that light speed doesn't change--everything else does. In order to fudge this into "reality" then "time must slow down" etc... How am I wrong in this understanding? How can c be relative when relativity is about keeping c at c?

[Sparky]

.
.
.
.
.............................................................
.
.
.
.

[Solar]

... if c is "relative" how is it constant and fixed? ... How can c be relative when relativity is about keeping c at c?

The answer to this question is that c is a "constant" only by definition.

In his Science delusions talk Rupert Sheldrake shares a humorous story about these self imposed definitions with regard to the supposed “speed of light” and Nature’s supposed “constants”. Click forward to approximately 10:22 seconds:

The Science Delusion

Thus, we have different measured values for a condition but we’ve also paradoxically defined the condition as a constant (stochastic and probabilistic assumptions can form a working hypothesis; but do not constitute a fact). Similarly "Time" is defined to be what a clock "measures" but the definition has now become something automatically parroted as a truth. We make the definitions; then they become affixed as truths leaving us to wonder how, or whence the meanings came. We simply make them.

The anisotropy of light in coax and fiber optic ... is said to have been measured before. The last person to have accidentally measured this quality was a gentleman by the name of Roland De Witte (now deceased). It is the fact that Mr. De Witte accidentally discovered something that is of significance:

The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves

Mr. De Witte had a website with some of his data at one time; that is now gone unless it is on the internet archives website. Later, someone else downloaded the old website and had it reposted but I have lost that link also. Only one person now keeps the event Mr. De Witte discovered alive and correlates it with other data in order to try and show that not only did Mr. De Witte detect something of significance but also did Michaelson-Morely and a few others. That person is Reginald T. Cahill who refers to the Aether as “3-Space” and runs:

Process Physicis - Scientific Papers

Mr. Cahill is one of my favorites and has been for several years but it is imperative that one reads his works VERY carefully as it contains some of the language of today’s modern relativistic astrophysics. This is what AToR tries desperately to be but:

Thus there is no need for the Michelson-Morley experiment or indeed for any experiment designed to prove or disprove the existance of the Aether. – Aether Pages

That is the dagger in the heart of AToR.

[Michael V]

viscount aero,

I don't think everything is accelerating.

The Earth is rotating "about its axis" and orbiting the Sun, so for sure everything on Earth is accelerating. Unless you object to the notion of rotating galaxies, then everything in rotating galaxies is also accelerating.

In fact you would need to resort to objecting to Newton's laws of motion to find any situation, anywhere, that does not result in some force of some kind acting upon electrons and protons. So, no, it is not possible to "coast" relative to other bodies and in fact it is absolutely demanded by those laws of motion that bodies of matter react to other bodies of matter and are accelerated.

Things can sit still or coast relative to other objects....

Not according to the logic of Newton's laws of motion they can't. If an electron or proton has any force acting on it whatsoever, then it must accelerate. Hopefully you're not confusing change of speed with change of direction - unfortunately for fans of precise language, the term "accelerate" applies to both. Just to be clear, I am referring to "change of direction" - continuous and unavoidable. Obviously, changes of speed may also occur, but it is not necessary to consider that to accept the validity of the concept that all actual bodies of matter (i.e. electrons and protons) are subject to continuous acceleration.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by "things", but in my estimation there are only two types of matter "things" of genuine interest: electrons and protons, and with respect to light-signals, especially electrons.

but not necessarily undergo constant acceleration. How do you arrive at a constant acceleration for everything?

Quite right, my bad. I should not have used the word "constant" as it is too ambiguous. The word "continuous" is less so and hopefully more acceptable.
To deny continuous acceleration of all matter is tantamount to suggesting that some particles of matter occupy a state of absolute rest and that the rest of the entire infinite universe moves relative to those bodies and their preferred frame. I'm guessing that you would not wish to suggest that, and hopefully I have now made myself better understood.

I would go a step further and suggest that it is not possible by any means for two particles of matter to truly share the same inertial frame and that any suggestion that they do or could is effectively an oxymoron. This is particularly important when we consider that it is electrons that both emit and receive light-signals (it is not really light bulbs and lasers that emit light-signals, although it is often more convenient for us to state in those terms).


Michael

[viscount aero]

viscount aero,

I don't think everything is accelerating.

The Earth is rotating "about its axis" and orbiting the Sun, so for sure everything on Earth is accelerating. Unless you object to the notion of rotating galaxies, then everything in rotating galaxies is also accelerating.

In fact you would need to resort to objecting to Newton's laws of motion to find any situation, anywhere, that does not result in some force of some kind acting upon electrons and protons. So, no, it is not possible to "coast" relative to other bodies and in fact it is absolutely demanded by those laws of motion that bodies of matter react to other bodies of matter and are accelerated.

Things can sit still or coast relative to other objects....

Not according to the logic of Newton's laws of motion they can't. If an electron or proton has any force acting on it whatsoever, then it must accelerate. Hopefully you're not confusing change of speed with change of direction - unfortunately for fans of precise language, the term "accelerate" applies to both. Just to be clear, I am referring to "change of direction" - continuous and unavoidable. Obviously, changes of speed may also occur, but it is not necessary to consider that to accept the validity of the concept that all actual bodies of matter (i.e. electrons and protons) are subject to continuous acceleration.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by "things", but in my estimation there are only two types of matter "things" of genuine interest: electrons and protons, and with respect to light-signals, especially electrons.

but not necessarily undergo constant acceleration. How do you arrive at a constant acceleration for everything?

Quite right, my bad. I should not have used the word "constant" as it is too ambiguous. The word "continuous" is less so and hopefully more acceptable.
To deny continuous acceleration of all matter is tantamount to suggesting that some particles of matter occupy a state of absolute rest and that the rest of the entire infinite universe moves relative to those bodies and their preferred frame. I'm guessing that you would not wish to suggest that, and hopefully I have now made myself better understood.

I would go a step further and suggest that it is not possible by any means for two particles of matter to truly share the same inertial frame and that any suggestion that they do or could is effectively an oxymoron. This is particularly important when we consider that it is electrons that both emit and receive light-signals (it is not really light bulbs and lasers that emit light-signals, although it is often more convenient for us to state in those terms).


Michael

Ok now I understand what you mean. That all above is true. I agree with it. Thank you for your thorough replies and clarifications All reference frames are inertial locally and remotely.