The Aether Theory of Relativity

[Aardwolf]

But wouldn't each clock be both faster and slower relative to each other? I never found the clock issue to be actual or possible if everything is relative. There cannot be an absolute determination of which clock is which--which one is the one going faster? They both are. Whatever the airplanes and clocks are testing for is not for "relativity." They cannot be. The test is a red herring.

I dont understand your post.
If two clocks start synchronized and by some means end unsynchronized then clock A has run fast relative to clock B and/or clock B has run slow relative to clock A. How can they both be going faster? That does not make sense.

From A's persepective B accelerates away so A would conclude B is time dilated. From B's perspective A accelerates away so B concludes A is time dilated. Hence both A & B would say the other clock has time dilated. Please tell us which one is telling the truth?

[Michael V]

From A's persepective B accelerates away so A would conclude B is time dilated. From B's perspective A accelerates away so B concludes A is time dilated.

Can anyone explain why A and B would conclude that, for the other, "time" has slowed down?. That is to say, what is the logical reasoning that allows for even the possibility that a travelling, or even accelerating, "observer" would conclude that "time" has dilated for another body?.

This question/request is to anyone and everyone - absolutely anyone who thinks they know and are prepared to try to explain it.


Michael

[viscount aero]

From A's persepective B accelerates away so A would conclude B is time dilated. From B's perspective A accelerates away so B concludes A is time dilated.

Can anyone explain why A and B would conclude that, for the other, "time" has slowed down?. That is to say, what is the logical reasoning that allows for even the possibility that a travelling, or even accelerating, "observer" would conclude that "time" has dilated for another body?.

This question/request is to anyone and everyone - absolutely anyone who thinks they know and are prepared to try to explain it.


Michael

Well of course it is because c must remain constant everywhere, at any moment. The problem is that time dilation and length contraction can only be measured in a local reference frame relative to a remote reference frame--yet both are the same to the other. So any notion of using clocks on airplanes to test this is impossible. Therefore the slower and faster clocks derived on airplanes are not testing for relativity but for something else.

[Solar]

Things were moving in this Universe long before anyone generated a concept of Time.
If you think Time is a manmade concept ...

David. I thank you kindly. As always these are thoughts for consideration.

Marengo: No. “Time” is not “too complicated” neither is it “too complex”. Positing such a notion is one of those things relativistic thinking, along the line of Einstein’s supporters, does to try and keep ideations reserved for the elite. It just isn’t so imho.

Unfortunately, you apparently do not realize the scope of the contradiction expressed in your very own words highlighted above likewise affirming that someone(s) ...generated a concept of Time" while you simultaneously state that there were events occurring in the Universe beforehand.

[Solar]

Also.

You have integrated your theory positing the existence of an Aether ( a little understood and confusing topic in and of itself) with the paradoxical terminology that characterizes Relativism (more confusion to say the least)and you have not clarified what some of the terms (“mass”, “mass-energy”, “relativistic mass” and the like for example) mean. Your treatise makes no effort to distinguish the differences between “Relativity” as presented by Einstein and Relativity as presented by Marengo save inertial bodies. It would be nice if it also briefly contrast the simplicity of what ‘Relative’(comparison) actually means. Member Aardwolf has tried in vain to advise you that even the so called experts have difficulty when spreading the Doctrine of Paradox that Einstein’s supporters keep spreading by citing the following document in relation to some of the terminology:

On the Abuse and Use of Relativistic Mass (in full; and very nice)

You might also find interest in: The Equivalence of Mass and Energy: briefly discusses interpretations of the mass equivalency principle.

This is the nature of the problem that AToR faces imho. There are no comprehensively brief explanations of the crucial differences that make AToR different from Einstein’s relativity **ESPECIALLY** since AToR is using the very same language and concepts. The situation is, with typical knee-jerk reaction, you defend the use of these terms while not explaining them when in fact they are in question within some of circles of scientific authority. This is one of the problems with your treatise and why I made some suggestions in this post.

Again, these are just suggestions. Few will simply “believe” in “relativistic mass” and/or any of its related siblings such as “length contraction”, “time dilation” and what not and neither will individuals blindly follow postulates without questioning them. The lack of clarity ALSO plagues Einstein’s very own geometrized version (or model?) of what ‘Relative’ means. Yes, I think you will need to get that fundamental with things.

[marengo]

Exactly The clocks cannot be testing for relativity because they cannot. Time passage and length contraction are only locally perceived phenomena. They occur everywhere simultaneously.

Frankly, I dont understand what you are saying here.
Length contraction, time dilation and mass increase affect all matter as a function of the Aether velocity of the particular body. I have the physics to support what I am saying. Do you?

But I am afraid the picture is more complex than that. We cannot detect these effects for the reasons I have already given. However these effects convert/translate into identical effects observed between IRFs. Again I have the physics to prove that.

I f you only took the trouble to read the physics you might understand Relativity a little better.

[marengo]

to Kevin
I suggest you stand in the middle of a motorway, freeway, road during a busy time. You might just chage your mind as to whether bodies move or not.

[marengo]

From A's persepective B accelerates away so A would conclude B is time dilated. From B's perspective A accelerates away so B concludes A is time dilated. Hence both A & B would say the other clock has time dilated. Please tell us which one is telling the truth?

You are now not dealing with the test I described.
I said' two synchronized clocks part, take different journeys and then re-unite.
Thus at re-union they are stationary side by side. There is no acceleration or velocity when they read each other.
STICK TO THE POINT PLEASE

[marengo]

Can anyone explain why A and B would conclude that, for the other, "time" has slowed down?. That is to say, what is the logical reasoning that allows for even the possibility that a travelling, or even accelerating, "observer" would conclude that "time" has dilated for another body?.

This question/request is to anyone and everyone - absolutely anyone who thinks they know and are prepared to try to explain it.

Michael. you started reading my book. The book explains your question so why did you not continue reading.

The faster clocks move through the Aether the slower they run.
The explanation is in the Lorentz Transforms which you had nearly got to previously.

[marengo]

Unfortunately, you apparently do not realize the scope of the contradiction expressed in your very own words highlighted above likewise affirming that someone(s) ...generated a concept of Time" while you simultaneously state that there were events occurring in the Universe beforehand.

Would you please re-phrase the above so that I can follow what you mean.

[marengo]

This is the nature of the problem that AToR faces imho. There are no comprehensively brief explanations of the crucial differences that make AToR different from Einstein’s relativity **ESPECIALLY** since AToR is using the very same language and concepts. The situation is, with typical knee-jerk reaction, you defend the use of these terms while not explaining them when in fact they are in question within some of circles of scientific authority. This is one of the problems with your treatise and why I made some suggestions in this post.

Why dont you try reading my booklet or even some of my Aether pages where I describe the differences between Einstein's relativity and the AoTR.
But I will put it simply here. Einstein's relativity applies only to non-real inertial bodies. The AoTR applies to real accelerating bodies. IS THAT NOT A BIG DIFFERENCE?

[marengo]

Most of the posters here seem not to believe in relativistic effects.
I have described several of those effects happening in nature. The most impressive is the LHC where mass is 15000 times the rest mass.
So that Aardwolf does not have to believe in relativity he has to do away with mass altogether.
So that solar does not have to believe in time dilation he has to do away with Time as a physical entity and says it is only a man-made concept.
Perhaps somebody soon will tell me that matter length does not exist as he does not want to believe in length contraction.

So, in order to continue to believe in a wrong concept you have to destroy the fundamentals of physics.
GENTLEMEN, THAT IS A NONSENSE

[Michael V]

To travel back in "time": The definition of time travel is to physically transfer matter from its present cosmic position and condition to a physical environment described by the matter and electromagnetic and gravitational conditions that have long since dissipated away from the cosmic locations that they previously occupied. To achieve this, the entire infinite universe must be frozen at absolute rest and then rewound to the desired point, excepting the matter and its gravitational and electromagnetic environment.....

Even an attempt to describe the definition of time travel, either backwards or forwards, quickly falls into ridiculous nonsense. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the universe can only "move forward", in that it is impossible for all matter and action at a distance sub-fields (i.e. aether, virtual energy fields or whatever you like) to simultaneously reverse course to precisely assume a previous configuration. This fact of this process of cosmic reality has acquired the generalised label of "time" - variously compared to the irreversible flow of a river or the flight of an arrow. In this regard, time has always existed, will always exist and is entirely unconnected with human activity or definitions of concepts and is therefore not a human made concept.

Measurement of the rate of relative travel of matter and action-at-a-distance signals is another, more specific definition and use of the word "time". This involves the use and comparison of natural processes, which ultimately reduces to the rate of signal travel - most commonly, the speed of light-signals.

Galilean relativity expresses the realisation that the travel of matter can only be physically described and measured relative to other matter. Beyond this, there is also the apparent fact that action-at-a-distance signals (including light-signals) travel at a constant speed regardless of the velocity of travel of the source.

Relativity Theories, unjustifiably extend this apparent experimental fact, of a constant speed of light regardless of the velocity of the emitter, to also say that the speed of light is constant relative to the velocity of the receiver.

light clock classic.gif (5.6 KiB) Viewed 8377 times

Using the light-clock as a demonstration: A moving "observer" would supposedly see the right-hand view and conclude that since the speed of light must travel at a constant speed between the mirrors then, for that relatively moving observer", the light must travel further than for an observer "local" to the light-clock, who would supposedly see the left-hand view - hence the moving observer concludes that "time" is moving slower (or is dilated) for the local frame, at rest relative to the light-pulse and mirrors, observer.
All sorts of suspension of disbelief is required for this to be true, not least of which, is that the "local frame" observer and the light pulse that they observe are unaware of the travel of the mirrors relative to the points of reflection of the light pulse. For the moving frame observer however, both the observer and the self-same light pulse is now aware that the mirrors are travelling relative to the points of reflection. We can only conclude then, that in the left-hand scenario, the mirrors are not moving relative to the light and in the right-hand scenario the mirrors are moving relative to the light.
So, for this illusion/delusion to work you must accept that the ponderable matter that constitutes the mirrors is not moving relative to the light-pulse and then simultaneously the ponderable matter that constitutes the mirrors is moving relative to the light-pulse. Also simultaneously to this occurring, the "at rest" observer is supposedly not moving relative to the light-pulse in both scenarios. Therefore, in the right-hand scenario, for time dilation to occur, the ponderable matter of the local observer must be at rest with the light-pulse and the ponderable matter of the mirrors must be moving relative to the light-pulse.

In conclusion, the right-hand picture is the correct picture at all times and to all matter and all "observers" - light travels relative to matter, and so the notion of time dilation is fallacious.


Note: marengo may think that he has somehow escaped with time dilation and length contraction intact, but that is not so. I will expand my arguments to include ator time dilation and length contraction in a later post.

(also see my previous light-clock analysis for other light-clock impossible inconsistencies and misconceptions)


Michael

[viscount aero]

Exactly The clocks cannot be testing for relativity because they cannot. Time passage and length contraction are only locally perceived phenomena. They occur everywhere simultaneously.

Frankly, I dont understand what you are saying here.
Length contraction, time dilation and mass increase affect all matter as a function of the Aether velocity of the particular body. I have the physics to support what I am saying. Do you?

If length contraction, time dilation, and mass increase are not believable in Einstein's relativity then why are they believable in your theory? It has taken you 12 pages to understand that Einsteinian physics is generally not welcomed here?

But I am afraid the picture is more complex than that. We cannot detect these effects for the reasons I have already given. However these effects convert/translate into identical effects observed between IRFs.

This is exactly what I am saying! So you actually do understand what I am saying but somehow didn't follow it. Perhaps I didn't describe it clearly enough, but you just restated what I proposed insofar as the "clock test" for relativity. Such a test is erroneous. It cannot, cannot ever, test for relativity. It's impossible to test for relativity using the clock test. Why it has persisted as a "proof of truth" for 50 years or so is beyond my understanding.

Again I have the physics to prove that.

Ok great. Share your paper with an organization for proper peer review, not here. Here you are not going to gain any traction with your theory I'm afraid. Putting "aether" into the theory doesn't seem to help because you are generally restating what Einstein already established. And to your amazement, you're not the only one here who can discuss relativity. For the most part, people here do understand relativity and most often don't really believe it once they begin to ponder its deeper implications for reality.

If you only took the trouble to read the physics you might understand Relativity a little better.

I do understand it; a basic understanding of Einstein's relativity isn't that hard to understand. A kid can understand it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM

Moreover, I think the one not understanding the discussion is you. In your case I still think there is a language or cultural barrier in this discussion. I don't think your first language is English which makes it very hard to have a discussion with you. Some of your descriptions are incoherent.

As you already know relativity is a subjective phenomenon based on local inertial reference frames. It is not objective. You have even said it yourself. In a sense it is make-believe although to an observer it is real. Results are not absolute in relativity.

[marengo]

If length contraction, time dilation, and mass increase are not believable in Einstein's relativity then why are they believable in your theory? It has taken you 12 pages to understand that Einsteinian physics is generally not welcomed here?

And its taken you 12 pages and several topics and you still do not understand that I too think Einsteinian physics is rubbish.