Ether Explanation of Gravity Time Dilation

[kenseto]

If spacetime is replaced with a structured ether called the E-Matrix, then we have a logical explanation gravity time dilation as follows:

1. Near a massive body such as the sun or the earth the E-Matrix (spacetime) surrounding them is more curved. This takes more time for the arrival of the required energy for the Cs 133 atom (atomic clock) to complete a cycle than in normal flat E-Matrix (spacetime).

2. The GPS confirms the above description. The GPS is farer away from the earth’s center of gravity and thus the E-Matrix (spacetime) surrounding the GPS is less curved than the E-Matrix (spacetime) on the surface of the earth. And thus it takes less time for the Cs 133 atom to complete a cycle at the GPS location. It (http://location….it) is confirmed that the GPS accumulates clock seconds at a faster rate than the ground clock by a factor of 38us/day. In order to correct this difference in clock rates, the designers of the GPS redefined the GPS second to have 9,192,631,774.4647 periods of Cs 133 radiation vs the standard ground clock second which is defined to have 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs 133 radiation. This makes the GPS in synch with the ground clock permanently in terms of absolute time.

3. The above description of gravitational time dilation is included in a new theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory) in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

[Odd Bodkin]

You think somehow renaming spacetime to “E-Matrix” is a scientific
advancement?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[kenseto]

Yes the E-Matrix provides a physical explanation for gravity time dilation whereas spacetime provide no physical explanation.

[Odd Bodkin]

Renaming it makes it have a physical explanation?

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

E-Matrix = Aether

cos(x)+cos(y)+cos(z)= 0

https://photos.app.goo.gl/19jEa8e6zQPxiZJp1

https://photos.app.goo.gl/oaSaAazt31EgAPoJ2

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RdZNT9XVtKV66AiU2

https://photos.app.goo.gl/mkInvmpBS0YHMkyn2

Bulk Modulus & Wave Speed

https://sites.google.com/site/atomicmassplanckmass/dahl-s-constant

[Michael Moroney]

Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:

>> Yes the E-Matrix provides a physical explanation for gravity time
>> dilation whereas spacetime provide no physical explanation.
>>

>Renaming it makes it have a physical explanation?

It's not really a renaming of spacetime, but a renaming of aether.
Ken actually believes in an aether.

[Evonne Lamarr]

so did Tesla, and that's why you have radio, tv and internet today.

[Evonne Lamarr]

kenseto wrote:

> 1. Near a massive body such as the sun or the earth the E-Matrix
> (spacetime) surrounding them is more curved. This takes more time for
> the arrival of the required energy for the Cs 133 atom (atomic clock) to
> complete a cycle than in normal flat E-Matrix (spacetime).

Agree, the E-Matrix is better than spacetime. Gives more consistence, as
required by the Scientific Method. You can have a Handle to an E-Matrix,
hence rotate, translate, mirror, compress, extend and so on. All these
things are IMPOSSIBLE dealing with the spacetime. Thank you.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/t6uuBjLJRuPocU7F2

https://photos.app.goo.gl/jVX1VmCoP5tnX2Md2

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m_SqXoVv0bwzxVVP0_3ffaBRQJjbXKju/view?usp=sharing

[kenseto]

BTW the ether came first....that means that spacetime is a renaming of the ether.

[Evonne Lamarr]

kenseto wrote:

>> > Yes the E-Matrix provides a physical explanation for gravity time
>> > dilation whereas spacetime provide no physical explanation.
>>
>> Renaming it makes it have a physical explanation?
>
> BTW the ether came first....that means that spacetime is a renaming of
> the ether.

Absolutely, glad to meet woken up people still around here.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

"that means that space-time is a renaming of the ether"

POT KETTLE BLACK

[Evonne Lamarr]

Sorry, I already said too much. The relativists are not keen stealing
theories. Or models.

[Odd Bodkin]

Big difference. No one wrote “spacetime (ether)” like you wrote “E-Matrix
(spacetime)”. Nobody claimed spacetime is a renamed ether. You claimed the
E-Matrix is a renamed spacetime. As though that accomplished anything.

>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The strength of gravity programs Gamma for time's first slow rate.
Gravity has its own slow time coming first for time of light and atom.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Steve BH]

Dear Dingdong:

As pointed out before, your theory (improved relativity theory=IRT) is malpredictive. Instead of a Doppler effect which changes EMR f and lambda, you have one where lambda is constant and f and c change. You have slow and fast light in vacuum, which do not work and are not observed.

1) This makes the Compton equation wrong and in fact not even wrong. Without a constant c there are too many variables. You decided the Compton result is a Doppler shift due to speed through the aether/Ematrix, but people would have noticed by now that two Compton experiments with different input lambda give the same frequency shift, and they do not.

2) With a variable speed of light E = hf = hc/lambda no longer works as it has three variables. Two photons of the same color can have two different energies, dependinding in part on their speed.

3) GPS no longer works without constant c. GPS would need to figure out slow and fast light transit times from Doppler data, and it doesn’t. It works without bothering.

4) Maxwell’s equation for speed of c is wrong, as there isn’t such a speed.

And so on.

[rotchm]

<diversions snipped>

You have some unfinished answers to attend to. You asked us to ask you questions. Well we have, and you just run away from them. That's not scientific and quite dishonest of you. So, here again are some:

How does the relation F = -1/r² imply a repulsive force?
Can you support your clam with some math instead of handwaving?
Where did Newton say that it was repulsive?

F = -1/r² is solely attractive, and it can be (mathematically) shown that
there are solutions where objects "speed away" even though its attractive.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Steve BH

Dear Dingdong:

As pointed out before, your theory (improved relativity theory=IRT) is malpredictive. Instead of a Doppler effect which changes EMR f and lambda, you have one where lambda is constant and f and c change. You have slow and fast light in vacuum, which do not work and are not observed.

c = speed of Causality

There is No Where to go “yet” completely Eliminating any possible (super-Luminal c).

Which is exactly why accelerated mass gains Relativistic Mass.

Trying to add momentum to an inflight photon such as in the “Em-Drive” shortens the wavelengths.

RF resonant cavity thruster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

Because Space Time is a Medium created by the (field / horizon of a black hole).

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

((1e-4 ((kg * m) / (s^2))) / (79.57747154 watts)) * c = 376.730313

(1 ((kg * m) / (s^2))) / (0.07957747154 watts) = 12.5663706 s / m

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The ’nym-shifting troll blathered as "Evonne Lamarr" <ra...@liwowa.ar>:

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> It's not really a renaming of spacetime, but a renaming of aether.
>> Ken actually believes in an aether.
>
> so did Tesla, and that's why you have radio, tv and internet today.

You are not going to be able to cite evidence.


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[benj]

Hey, Odd, *I* claimed that aether has been renamed spacetime. that much
is obvious to anyone with an understanding of math an science because
"empty" space has properties. You should listen to Einstein more.

[Michael Moroney]

The nym-shifting troll trolled as Evonne Lamarr <ra...@liwowa.ar>:

Irrelevant what Tesla believed, since before Einstein's works aether was
still state of the art, and Tesla's actual successes didn't depend on
whether there was an aether or not.

But now, more than 100 years later, it is stupid to consider an aether as
anything more than the need for space to host things like electric fields
and so forth.

[kenseto]

Idiot.....space-time is a renaming of the ether. The ether provides a physical medium for the gravitating objects to follow its geometries. That gives the force of gravity.

[kenseto]

So what? It just mean that the E-Matrix is a new concept and that’s why no body but me can make the connection. Gee you are stupid.

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/20/18 4:23 AM, benj wrote:
> *I* claimed that aether has been renamed spacetime. that much
> is obvious to anyone with an understanding of math an science because
> "empty" space has properties.

This is just plain wrong, and spacetime is QUITE DIFFERENT from
classical notions of aether.

Those notions were that aether is what is "waving" as
light propagates. Spacetime does not do that at all.

In particular, empty space has always had properties -- that's what
geometry is.

In modern physics, we model the world as a fiber bundle over spacetime,
and the various quantum fields are the fibers. This is nowhere close to
any sort of aether. In particular, there is NOTHING that "waves" as
light propagates -- light is a collection of excitations in the quantum
fields (aka photons).

Tom Roberts

[Michael Moroney]

No, Stupid Ken. Einstein explicitly said that the concept of an aether
would not be used in his SR and GR work. His spacetime is a different
concept from aether,

> The ether provides a physical medium for the gravitating objects to
>follow its geometries. That gives the force of gravity.

Not according to Einstein. He stated mass warped spacetime and no concept
of an aether was necessary for that. Explicitly nothing needs to "carry"
gravitation.

Do try to learn what Einstein said before you claim to disprove it.

[Michael Moroney]

If nobody but you can do that, that means your ideas are not reproduceable
by others, so therefore they cannot be a scientific theory, and can never
replace current science.

[Evonne Lamarr]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ’nym-shifting troll blathered as "Evonne Lamarr" <ra...@liwowa.ar>:
>
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> It's not really a renaming of spacetime, but a renaming of aether.
>>> Ken actually believes in an aether.
>>
>> so did Tesla, and that's why you have radio, tv and internet today.
>
> You are not going to be able to cite evidence. PointedEars

Plenty, pigears. You just need to want to learn.

[Evonne Lamarr]

Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>Renaming it makes it have a physical explanation?
>>>
>>> It's not really a renaming of spacetime, but a renaming of aether.
>>> Ken actually believes in an aether.
>>
>> so did Tesla, and that's why you have radio, tv and internet today.
>
> Irrelevant what Tesla believed, since before Einstein's works aether was
> still state of the art, and Tesla's actual successes didn't depend on
> whether there was an aether or not.
> But now, more than 100 years later, it is stupid to consider an aether
> as anything more than the need for space to host things like electric
> fields and so forth.

At least you are admitting, relativity has no says into the fabrication of
tools, goods and services. No relativity corrections. But rather Aether
correction, for instance a BP filter, filters the surplus of Aether out.

[kenseto]

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 4:59:40 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> Dear Dingdong:
>
> As pointed out before, your theory (improved relativity theory=IRT) is malpredictive. Instead of a Doppler effect which changes EMR f and lambda, you have one where lambda is constant and f and c change. You have slow and fast light in vacuum, which do not work and are not observed.

Idiot slow and fast light are observed as follows:
c’ = (measured incoming frequency)(wavelength of the source)
c’=c(measured wavelength of incoming light/measured wavelength of the source)=c(measured frequency of incoming light/measured frequency of the source)

>
> 1) This makes the Compton equation wrong and in fact not even wrong. Without a constant c there are too many variables. You decided the Compton result is a Doppler shift due to speed through the aether/Ematrix, but people would have noticed by now that two Compton experiments with different input >lambda give the same frequency shift, and they do not.
>

You don’t understand the Compton experiment. It does not predict same frequency shift for different wavelength input. Gee you are stupid.

> 2) With a variable speed of light E = hf = hc/lambda no longer works as it has three variables. Two photons of the same color can have two different energies, dependinding in part on their speed.

Idiot....i said that the incoming speed of light is variable. Speed of light within the observer’s frame is defined as constant c.

>
> 3) GPS no longer works without constant c. GPS would need to figure out slow and fast light transit times from Doppler data, and it doesn’t. It works without bothering.

The GPS work just fine.

>
> 4) Maxwell’s equation for speed of c is wrong, as there isn’t such a speed.

Within the observer’s frame the permittivity and permeability are measured to be constant and that’s why Maxwell’s equation for constant light speed works.

[Evonne Lamarr]

Actually that BP filter meant rather as a directional antenna, not as an
electronic module/component. For the unaware.

[Evonne Lamarr]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> This is just plain wrong, and spacetime is QUITE DIFFERENT from

> classical notions of aether. [*]

> Those notions were that aether is what is "waving" as light propagates.
> Spacetime does not do that at all.
> In particular, empty space has always had properties -- that's what
> geometry is.

You just said at [*] that it was different.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:49:03 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/20/18 4:23 AM, benj wrote:
> > *I* claimed that aether has been renamed spacetime. that much
> > is obvious to anyone with an understanding of math an science because
> > "empty" space has properties.
>
> This is just plain wrong, and spacetime is QUITE DIFFERENT from
> classical notions of aether.

This is not wrong. The ether (the E-Matrix) has all the specified properties of spacetime and much more. So it is not wrong to say that spacetime is a renaming of the ether even though doing so will reduce the effectiveness of the ether (the E-Matrix). The E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of and capable of uniting gravity with all the forces of nature.

>
> Those notions were that aether is what is "waving" as
> light propagates. Spacetime does not do that at all.

That’s right. That’s because spacetime is an abstraction.

>
> In particular, empty space has always had properties -- that's what
> geometry is.

Empty space cannot have properties or geometry. The ether is renamed as spacetime and thus it can make interacting to follow its geometry.

>
> In modern physics, we model the world as a fiber bundle over spacetime,
> and the various quantum fields are the fibers. This is nowhere close to
> any sort of aether. In particular, there is NOTHING that "waves" as
> light propagates -- light is a collection of excitations in the quantum
> fields (aka photons).

The fiber bundle the quantum field theory is the E-Matrix. Distortion of the fiber bundles is distortion in the E Matrix. interacting objects are confined to the geometry of the fiber bundles as they move in the E-Matrix.

[Odd Bodkin]

Renaming something is not exactly establishing a new concept. Do you think
that if you renamed “table” to “cupboard” and put out a post describing
your theory of cupboards (tables) you would have created a new concept?

[Odd Bodkin]

No, it’s not. You may have THOUGHT that it was, but that’s wrong.

> The ether provides a physical medium for the gravitating objects to follow its geometries.

Again, there was no ether theory that espoused what you claim. Your own
imagining things is irrelevant.

> That gives the force of gravity.
>

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Too bad that you weren't there to explain your idiot guru.

Do you think
> that if you renamed “table” to “cupboard” and put out a post describing
> your theory of cupboards (tables) you would have created a new concept?

It has worked well with "spacetime".

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The ’nym-shifting troll blathered as "Evonne Lamarr" <ra...@liwowa.ar>:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The ’nym-shifting troll blathered as "Evonne Lamarr" <ra...@liwowa.ar>:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> It's not really a renaming of spacetime, but a renaming of aether.
>>>> Ken actually believes in an aether.
>>> so did Tesla, and that's why you have radio, tv and internet today.
>> You are not going to be able to cite evidence.
>

> Plenty, pigears. You just need to want to learn.

Humor me.


PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Steve BH]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 8:11:21 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 4:59:40 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> > Dear Dingdong:
> >
> > As pointed out before, your theory (improved relativity theory=IRT) is malpredictive. Instead of a Doppler effect which changes EMR f and lambda, you have one where lambda is constant and f and c change. You have slow and fast light in vacuum, which do not work and are not observed.
>
> Idiot slow and fast light are observed as follows:
> c’ = (measured incoming frequency)(wavelength of the source)
> c’=c(measured wavelength of incoming light/measured wavelength of the source)=c(measured frequency of incoming light/measured frequency of the source)

You have the same observer measuring two photons at c and c', in and out. That's one observer, one frame, and two speeds of light.

>
> >
> > 1) This makes the Compton equation wrong and in fact not even wrong. Without a constant c there are too many variables. You decided the Compton result is a Doppler shift due to speed through the aether/Ematrix, but people would have noticed by now that two Compton experiments with different input >lambda give the same frequency shift, and they do not.
> >
>
> You don’t understand the Compton experiment. It does not predict same frequency shift for different wavelength input. Gee you are stupid.

It predicts the same WAVELENGTH shift for different wavelength input. But you cannot do that with two different speeds of light.

> > 2) With a variable speed of light E = hf = hc/lambda no longer works as it has three variables. Two photons of the same color can have two different energies, dependinding in part on their speed.
>
> Idiot....i said that the incoming speed of light is variable. Speed of light within the observer’s frame is defined as constant c.

Incoming light IS in the observer's frame! You have no idea what "frame" is. The Compton experiment equation assumes the lab frame is the only frame, all the time. But you're the one that had to mess with it, with a c and c'. You get the consequencies. Horse laugh.

> >
> > 3) GPS no longer works without constant c. GPS would need to figure out slow and fast light transit times from Doppler data, and it doesn’t. It works without bothering.
>
> The GPS work just fine.

Sure, because it assumes just one speed of light, c. In your theory a moving satellite would not emit one speed of radio pulse c. It would emit a signal at some c+v or c-v or whatever, depending on the speed of the satellite in the E-Matrix. But they can't all be at rest in the E-matrix, because they are all moving! GPS does not work in an E-Matrix.

> >
> > 4) Maxwell’s equation for speed of c is wrong, as there isn’t such a speed.
>
> Within the observer’s frame the permittivity and permeability are measured to be constant and that’s why Maxwell’s equation for constant light speed works.

Bullshit. See above.

[Odd Bodkin]

You perhaps don’t know the difference between ether and spacetime.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Odd, poor idiot, what do you think - why you have to constantly
accent the difference between the language of common people and
your moronic newspeak? Your Shit is just one great rename. Exactly.

[Odd Bodkin]

Aha. So you DON’T know the difference.


--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Your memory is short, poor idiot. You've forgot you
didn't know what a spacetime point is before I
taught you...
Nobody expect a fanatic idiot to have a good memory,
of course.

[kenseto]

Idiot the ether has properties that includes the properties of space-time and more. So that means that spacetime is a subset of the ether.

[Odd Bodkin]

Care to document your memory?

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Keep trying to spin things to try to make your meager nonsense seem
worthwhile.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Z-FNKeoZ1G4%5B1-25%5D

[Odd Bodkin]

So where do you think I did not know what a spacetime point was before you
educated me on it?
I see you made a claim that motion is meaningless in spacetime (which is
wrong), though you did mention a worldline in spacetime. I notice that you
cannot see the analog between trajectory in 3-space and worldline in
spacetime, and though a trajectory is fixed in 3-space, there is of course
a clear idea of motion ALONG a trajectory, just as there is a clear idea of
motion ALONG a worldline (I.e. parameterized by s along that worldline).

I’ll also note that in the same thread you just cited you stated that
spacetime is static. Whereas the luminiferous ether as a hypothesis was
clearly NOT static, and so your statement above that spacetime is just a
renamed ether, is just blowing smoke. A rather clumsy and witless attempt
to bluster through something you know precious little about.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[kenseto]

It is you who don’t know the difference. Spacetime is a narrow sub-concept of the ether. The ether has all the properties assigned for spacetime. In addition, the ether is able to unite all the forces of nature, gives rise to a new theory of gravity, etc.

[kenseto]

Exactly.....renaming a narrow group of properties of the ether as spacetime does not establish spacetime a new concept. Can you name one property of spacetime that is not derived from the ether? Guess not :-)

[kenseto]

Yes it is....spacetime is a name apply to a narrow group of properties of the Ether (the E-Matrix).

>
> > The ether provides a physical medium for the gravitating objects to follow its geometries.
>
> Again, there was no ether theory that espoused what you claim. Your own
> imagining things is irrelevant.

The E-Matrix espouses what I claimed.

[Odd Bodkin]

Sure. Hyperbolic geometry

[Odd Bodkin]

I love the idea that you believe that spacetime (1909) was the renaming of
an E-Matrix that you came up with in the 1990’s.

Tell me, in your world, what color are the trees?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Z-FNKeoZ1G4%5B1-25%5D

> clearly NOT static, and so your statement above that spacetime is just a
> renamed ether

You imagine, as usual.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 9:32:57 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 8:11:21 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 4:59:40 PM UTC-5, Steve BH wrote:
> > > Dear Dingdong:
> > >
> > > As pointed out before, your theory (improved relativity theory=IRT) is malpredictive. Instead of a Doppler effect which changes EMR f and lambda, you have one where lambda is constant and f and c change. You have slow and fast light in vacuum, which do not work and are not observed.
> >
> > Idiot slow and fast light are observed as follows:
> > c’ = (measured incoming frequency)(wavelength of the source)
> > c’=c(measured wavelength of incoming light/measured wavelength of the source)=c(measured frequency of incoming light/measured frequency of the source)
>
> You have the same observer measuring two photons at c and c', in and out. That's one observer, one frame, and two speeds of light.

The graphite target becomes a different source than the initial source and that’s why the detector detected a different c’.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > 1) This makes the Compton equation wrong and in fact not even wrong. Without a constant c there are too many variables. You decided the Compton result is a Doppler shift due to speed through the aether/Ematrix, but people would have noticed by now that two Compton experiments with different input >lambda give the same frequency shift, and they do not.
> > >
> >
> > You don’t understand the Compton experiment. It does not predict same frequency shift for different wavelength input. Gee you are stupid.
>
> It predicts the same WAVELENGTH shift for different wavelength input. But you cannot do that with two different speeds of light.

I think that:: (measured wavelength output)-(measured wavelength input) will give different value for WAVELENGTH SHIFT for different inputs.
The current Compton formula is based on assumed constants of c, m and h.

>
>
> > > 2) With a variable speed of light E = hf = hc/lambda no longer works as it has three variables. Two photons of the same color can have two different energies, dependinding in part on their speed.
> >
> > Idiot....i said that the incoming speed of light is variable. Speed of light within the observer’s frame is defined as constant c.
>
> Incoming light IS in the observer's frame! You have no idea what "frame" is. The Compton experiment equation assumes the lab frame is the only frame, all the time. But you're the one that had to mess with it, with a c and c'. You get the consequencies. Horse laugh.

No the carbon source is different than the original source and that’s why the detector detected different frequency and thus different light speed.

[kenseto]

Moron the E-Matrix is a structured ether.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Gravity strength programs Gamma for gravity field's C slow rate.
The first time is gravity time. Motion is the second time below
a slow C...

Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity