Re: Aether
Koobee Wublee
> Rod Ryker wrote:
> > The Aether is supported by many examples where things cannot be
> > without it.
>
> Not really. At present there is no aether theory that explains the breadth of
> phenomena explained by modern physics (which includes GR and the standard model
> as fundamental theories).
>
> (The standard model includes both SR and QED, which I mention
> below. GR also includes SR, as a local approximation.)
Putting away your zealous faith on GR, you will find GR does not deny
the Aether. Of course, that does not mean GR is a valid or an
“improved” theory of the Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug>
> > Now examine EM Waves. There is a source that emits a wave which is NOT
> > OF THE MEDIUM!
>
> Right. There is no "medium" for light or other EM waves. At least not in any
> mainstream theory of modern physics, which as I pointed out above explains a
> considerably wider breadth of phenomena than any other theory, aether or not.
Under Maxwell’s equations, EM waves fare better with the medium called
the Aether. However, the null results of the MMX steered the shallow
minds (which include almost all physicists) away through gross
misinterpretations to the consequences of these null results. Whether
Maxwell’s equations are valid or not, that is another chapter of
discussions. However, all observed phenomena of EM waves are best
interpreted with the Aether in mind. <shrug>
The physicists did not understand where to look for the Aether. The
null results of the MMX actually have hinted at the existence of the
Aether, but through ignorance and stupidities, mysticism has ruled.
Finally, the physicists actually understood where to look for the
Aether through the Doppler shift in CMBR, but they have discarded the
results. What a bunch of high priests zealously and faithfully stand
by their fouled religion, eh? <shrug>
> In physics we call something a "wave" when it obeys laws that constitute a wave
> equation. THAT is the defining characteristic, not the presence of "something
> that waves" (i.e. a medium).
Well, He (Yours Truly) supposes you can bring up an example of an
observed wave that does not require a medium to propagate, then.
Please do so, and please don’t bring up any variety of abstract waves
describing probabilities. <shrug>
> If one is willing to speak rather loosely, one could say that in QED what is
> "waving" is probability. This is a sound bite that does not really capture the
> essence of the theory, and is naive in several aspects, but it does satisfy some
> peoples' need for there to be "something that is waving". Note that probability
> does make sense here, and is not in any way a medium. For instance, "probability
> waving" explains in general both the geometrical optics and the wave
> approximations for EM waves, the double-slit experiment, etc.
Wow! You are a step ahead of Him to justify to continue to believe in
your bullshit. The bottom line is that probability waves are
spiritual in nature. EM waves are tangible and observable. <shrug>
> (Yes, it is really the "complex square root" of probability,
> and there are MANY other complexities.)
In actuality, SR and GR have nothing to do with probabilities. So,
stop creating more mysticism to justify your zealous belief in this
religion of SR and GR. <shrug>
Androcles
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db78e495-4102-4e78...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On May 30, 8:22 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Rod Ryker wrote:
> > The Aether is supported by many examples where things cannot be
> > without it.
>
> Not really. At present there is no aether theory that explains the breadth
> of
> phenomena explained by modern physics (which includes GR and the standard
> model
> as fundamental theories).
>
> (The standard model includes both SR and QED, which I mention
> below. GR also includes SR, as a local approximation.)
Putting away your zealous faith on GR, you will find GR does not deny
the Aether. Of course, that does not mean GR is a valid or an
“improved” theory of the Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug>
==============================================
Putting away your zealous faith on Aether, you will find Aether
does not deny the GR. Of course, that does not mean Aether is
a valid or an “improved” theory of the Galilean law of relativity. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Putting away your zealous faith on GR, you will find GR does not deny
> > the Aether. Of course, that does not mean GR is a valid or an
> > improved theory of the Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug>
>
> Putting away your zealous faith on Aether,
You are grossly mistaken. True scholars of science have no faith but
logical and reasonable deductions to support the conclusions as
claims. You need to go back to your 7th grade science class and
understand what science is. <shrug>
> you will find Aether does not deny the GR.
GR is mathematically inconsistent. On top of that, the mathematical
constructs that created GR were man-made mathematical artifacts.
Thus, your statement is stupid above and ignorant. <shrug>
> Of course, that does not mean Aether is
> a valid or an improved theory of the Galilean law of relativity. <shrug>
Androcles the ignorant has to study electromagnetism. Classical
electromagnetism if applied with Galilean relativity cannot explain
the null results of the MMX. Thus, Galilean transform is not valid
for the general case. Of course, that does not mean the Lorentz
transform is valid. <shrug>
It is more scientifically logical to modify the Galilean transform
instead of going back to the stone age of accepting Newtonian concept
on the corpuscle in light and keeping the Galilean transfrom. <shrug>
You need to get over with Wendy. <shrug>
Androcles
| On Jun 2, 10:30 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
| > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| > > Putting away your zealous faith on GR, you will find GR does not deny
| > > the Aether. Of course, that does not mean GR is a valid or an
| > > improved theory of the Newtonian law of gravity. <shrug>
| >
| > Putting away your zealous faith on Aether,
|
| You are grossly mistaken.
Putting away your zealous faith on ghostly ectoplasm, you will find
ghostly ectoplasm does not deny the GR. Of course, that does not
mean ghostly ectoplasm is a valid or an "improved" theory of the
Koobee Wublee
> On Jun 2, 3:22 am, saul <s...@space.unibe.ch> wrote:
> > You just listed an aether theory that explains quite a lot: GR +
> > standard model.
> > One can call this an aether theory because it prescribes physical
> > quantities to empty space. That was Einstein's criteria for an aether
> > theory and he considered his theory of GR to be an aether theory for
> > this reason. The "standard model" of quantum mechanics is also an
> > aether theory for the same reason, describing empty space with
> > detailed physical quantities.
>
> This is I suppose defensible in some abstract way as long as "medium"
> is defined in an unconventional way. However, then there is no
> measurable distinction between "empty space" and "medium", as there is
> no evidence of empty-space-without-physical-properties.
Your ‘no measurable distinction between “empty space” and “medium”’
reflects your level of technology. Only when you know where to look
for this medium, you will find it. Otherwise, stay mystified.
<shrug>
1treePetrifiedForestLane
is often taken to be one, the same as "free space," and
it is merely a heuristic.
all of the main properties of interstellar plasma
have been elucidated in the Alfven school, and
cosmology.
PD
Do tell. Also tell me where to find empty space without this medium in
mpc755
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy
clusters. The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave. The 'ripple' is an
aether displacement wave.
The above is physical evidence of a moving 'particle' having an
associated aether displacement wave.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits. The traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics, known
as the Copenhagen interpretation, dismisses the notion of
trajectories, and maintains that it is meaningless to ask what value a
variable, such as momentum, has if that's not what is being measured."
In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and
enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The aether
displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As
the particle exits a singel slit, it is this interference which alters
the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a
loss of coherence of the associated aether displacement wave, there is
no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not
altered.
The aether is detected every time a double slit experiment is
performed.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether is not at rest when
displaced. Displaced aether exerts force towards matter. Force exerted
towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Aether Displacement explains why the shape of the Milky Way's 'dark
matter' is in the shape of a squished beach ball.
'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
http://www.space.com/7746-dark-halo-galaxy-squished-beach-ball.html
"Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant
spheres called haloes."
The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether.
"But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly
spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in
a surprising direction perpendicular to the galaxy's visible, pancake-
shaped spiral disk."
All of the aether displaced by the Milky Way matter exerts force
towards the matter. The force exerted towards the matter by the aether
displaced perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy's spiral disk
offset. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the spiral disk which exerts force towards the center of the
galaxy. This forces the matter closer together which results in the
displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball.
Matter does not move with dark matter. Matter moves through the
aether.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract
"We compile a sample of 38 galaxy clusters which have both X-ray and
strong lensing observations, and study for each cluster the projected
offset between the dominant component of baryonic matter centre
(measured by X-rays) and the gravitational centre (measured by strong
lensing). Among the total sample, 45 per cent clusters have offsets
[greater than]10 arcsec. The [greater than]10 arcsec separations are
significant, considering the arcsecond precision in the measurement of
the lensing/X-ray centres. This suggests that it might be a common
phenomenon in unrelaxed galaxy clusters that gravitational field is
separated spatially from the dominant component of baryonic matter. It
also has consequences for lensing models of unrelaxed clusters since
the gas mass distribution may differ from the dark matter distribution
and give perturbations to the modelling. Such offsets can be used as a
statistical tool for comparison with the results of Lambda cold dark
matter ( CDM) simulations and to test the modified dynamics."
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving with respect to the
state of the aether.
> Also tell me where to find empty space without this medium in
> it.
>
Aether exists where matter does not. Aether exists where particles of
matter do not. As far as we know, there is no space, nor any part of
three dimensional space, devoid of aether and matter. As far as we
know, there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space,
devoid of mass.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
an approximation to Pascal's putative discovery
of an absolute vacuum in a really big test-tube
(the maximum stage of a suction pump .-)
Benj
> Aether exists where matter does not. Aether exists where particles of
> matter do not. As far as we know, there is no space, nor any part of
> three dimensional space, devoid of aether and matter. As far as we
> know, there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space,
> devoid of mass.
Thus, were it possible somehow to pump all aether from space, THAT
would represent a "true" vacuum. If we think about this a bit, we can
understand that IF we created a true vacuum, it would have several
properties. One such would be that waves of any kind could not be
transmitted through this vacuum. Unlike the logical failure of modern
physics which asserts nonsense like waves traveling without any medium
or "characteristics" (fields) existing without anything which
possesses the characteristics, a true vacuum would not transmit waves
nor have any properties like normal space. This is why Einstein noted
that empty space is "aether" precisely because it DOES have
properties. However, we can also note that particles can indeed
travel through a true vacuum with no logical contradictions.
So the only question that remains for the "ultimate" experiment needed
to demonstrate Aether would be the creation of such a "true vacuum".
How to do this is not presently known in the unclassified world, but I
suggest that it probably would take some kind of electromagnetic
pumping system. Probably not so simple as "nature abhors a 'true'
vacuum".
mpc755
There is already an overabundance of evidence of the aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy
clusters. The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave. The 'ripple' is an
aether displacement wave.
The above is physical evidence of a moving 'particle' having an
associated aether displacement wave.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and
enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The aether
displacement wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As
the particle exits a singel slit, it is this interference which alters
the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a
loss of coherence of the associated aether displacement wave, there is
no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not
altered.
The aether is detected every time a double slit experiment is
performed.
Aether Displacement explains why the shape of the Milky Way's 'dark
matter' is in the shape of a squished beach ball.
'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
http://www.space.com/7746-dark-halo-galaxy-squished-beach-ball.html
"Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant
spheres called haloes."
The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether.
"But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly
spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in
a surprising direction perpendicular to the galaxy's visible, pancake-
shaped spiral disk."
All of the aether displaced by the Milky Way matter exerts force
towards the matter. The force exerted towards the matter by the aether
displaced perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy's spiral disk
offset. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the spiral disk which exerts force towards the center of the
galaxy. This forces the matter closer together which results in the
displaced aether looking like a squished beach ball.
Matter does not move with dark matter. Matter moves through the
aether.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16739.x/abstract
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving with respect to the
state of the aether.
"NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment"
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
"Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly,
pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went
to space in 2004 to check."
And found.
The spin is either a physical spin of the aether or the spin is the
direction of the force associated with the aether displaced by the
Earth.
Byron Forbes
@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, mpc...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Jun 5, 4:00ï¿œpm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 9:27ï¿œam, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Aether exists where matter does not. Aether exists where particles of
> > > matter do not. As far as we know, there is no space, nor any part of
> > > three dimensional space, devoid of aether and matter. As far as we
> > > know, there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space,
> > > devoid of mass.
> >
> > Thus, were it possible somehow to pump all aether from space, THAT
> > would represent a "true" vacuum. If we think about this a bit, we can
> > understand that IF we created a true vacuum, it would have several
> > properties. One such would be that waves of any kind could not be
> > transmitted through this vacuum. Unlike the logical failure of modern
> > physics which asserts nonsense like waves traveling without any medium
> > or "characteristics" (fields) existing without anything which
> > possesses the characteristics, a true vacuum would not transmit waves
> > nor have any properties like normal space. This is why Einstein noted
> > that empty space is "aether" precisely because it DOES have
> > travel through a true vacuum with no logical contradictions.
> >
> > So the only question that remains for the "ultimate" experiment needed
> > to demonstrate Aether would be the creation of such a "true vacuum".
> > How to do this is not presently known in the unclassified world, but I
> > suggest that it probably would take some kind of electromagnetic
> > pumping system. Probably not so simple as "nature abhors a 'true'
> > vacuum".
>
> There is already an overabundance of evidence of the aether.
>
The most overwhelming kindergarten level evidence of aether is as
follows -
Phonons (matter and sound waves) and photons both have wave nature.
The likelihood that they are entirely different i.e. one is energy
traveling thru a medium and the other is something particulate (photon)
traveling thru nothing (vacuum), is absurd!
This is why this "aether" argument has raged on for centuries and
will continue to do so until it is found. Dark matter/energy is the
same thing.
It is typical of humans to deny the existence of that they have no
awareness of - like atheists and the gods. If they could get the
kindergarten logic above thru their heads then we may have more
"scientists" looking in the right directions!
mpc755
> In article <602c355c-e9af-45ac-ae50-0bfaa8ba4533
> @j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, mpc...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Jun 4, 9:27 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Aether exists where matter does not. Aether exists where particles of
> > > > matter do not. As far as we know, there is no space, nor any part of
> > > > three dimensional space, devoid of aether and matter. As far as we
> > > > know, there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space,
> > > > devoid of mass.
>
> > > Thus, were it possible somehow to pump all aether from space, THAT
> > > would represent a "true" vacuum. If we think about this a bit, we can
> > > understand that IF we created a true vacuum, it would have several
> > > properties. One such would be that waves of any kind could not be
> > > transmitted through this vacuum. Unlike the logical failure of modern
> > > physics which asserts nonsense like waves traveling without any medium
> > > or "characteristics" (fields) existing without anything which
> > > possesses the characteristics, a true vacuum would not transmit waves
> > > nor have any properties like normal space. This is why Einstein noted
> > > that empty space is "aether" precisely because it DOES have
> > > travel through a true vacuum with no logical contradictions.
>
> > > So the only question that remains for the "ultimate" experiment needed
> > > to demonstrate Aether would be the creation of such a "true vacuum".
> > > How to do this is not presently known in the unclassified world, but I
> > > suggest that it probably would take some kind of electromagnetic
> > > pumping system. Probably not so simple as "nature abhors a 'true'
> > > vacuum".
>
> > There is already an overabundance of evidence of the aether.
>
> The most overwhelming kindergarten level evidence of aether is as
> follows -
>
> Phonons (matter and sound waves) and photons both have wave nature.
> The likelihood that they are entirely different i.e. one is energy
> traveling thru a medium and the other is something particulate (photon)
> traveling thru nothing (vacuum), is absurd!
>
> This is why this "aether" argument has raged on for centuries and
> will continue to do so until it is found. Dark matter/energy is the
> same thing.
>
> It is typical of humans to deny the existence of that they have no
> awareness of - like atheists and the gods. If they could get the
> kindergarten logic above thru their heads then we may have more
> "scientists" looking in the right directions!
>
What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.
mpc755
> @j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, mpc...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Jun 4, 9:27 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Aether exists where matter does not. Aether exists where particles of
> > > > matter do not. As far as we know, there is no space, nor any part of
> > > > three dimensional space, devoid of aether and matter. As far as we
> > > > know, there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space,
> > > > devoid of mass.
>
> > > Thus, were it possible somehow to pump all aether from space, THAT
> > > would represent a "true" vacuum. If we think about this a bit, we can
> > > understand that IF we created a true vacuum, it would have several
> > > properties. One such would be that waves of any kind could not be
> > > transmitted through this vacuum. Unlike the logical failure of modern
> > > physics which asserts nonsense like waves traveling without any medium
> > > or "characteristics" (fields) existing without anything which
> > > possesses the characteristics, a true vacuum would not transmit waves
> > > nor have any properties like normal space. This is why Einstein noted
> > > that empty space is "aether" precisely because it DOES have
> > > travel through a true vacuum with no logical contradictions.
>
> > > So the only question that remains for the "ultimate" experiment needed
> > > to demonstrate Aether would be the creation of such a "true vacuum".
> > > How to do this is not presently known in the unclassified world, but I
> > > suggest that it probably would take some kind of electromagnetic
> > > pumping system. Probably not so simple as "nature abhors a 'true'
> > > vacuum".
>
> > There is already an overabundance of evidence of the aether.
>
> The most overwhelming kindergarten level evidence of aether is as
> follows -
>
> Phonons (matter and sound waves) and photons both have wave nature.
> The likelihood that they are entirely different i.e. one is energy
> traveling thru a medium and the other is something particulate (photon)
> traveling thru nothing (vacuum), is absurd!
>
> This is why this "aether" argument has raged on for centuries and
> will continue to do so until it is found. Dark matter/energy is the
> same thing.
>
> It is typical of humans to deny the existence of that they have no
> awareness of - like atheists and the gods. If they could get the
> kindergarten logic above thru their heads then we may have more
> "scientists" looking in the right directions!
>
What waves in a double slit experiment is the ether of relativity.
Rob Greason
Paul Stowe
Actually, it reflects the arrogance and lack of reasoning ability on
the part of humanity in general... We certainly CAN measure the
difference between a medium and truly '"empty space", as in a true
void. Empty means devoid of A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G... In our universe there
exist no such thing, volume devoid of medium (fields).
Paul Stowe
mpc755
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy
"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with
interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the
field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest
position."
A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the
field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.
Brad Guth
Isn't the gravity null of a cosmic lens kind of where the Aether is
getting pulled apart? (sort of getting thinned out to the point where
normal wave propagation simply can't pass directly through)
http://groups.google.com/group/google-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet/topics?hl=en
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
micro...@hotmail.com
There is one global universal field. We call it time-space. Forces are
local fields.
Even light and quantum waves might be considered small fields of their
own.
mpc755
There is no such thing as spacetime. It is not time which changes
which causes an atomic clock to tick at the rate it does.
It is the state of the ether which causes an atomic clock to tick at
the rate it does.
The greater the force of the ether exerted toward and throughout an
atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.
In terms of general relativity, this is the gravitational force
exerted toward and throughout the clock. Force exerted toward matter
by ether displaced by matter is gravity. The greater the gravitational
force of the ether exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock the
slower the clock ticks.
In terms of special relativity, this is the force associated with the
ether displaced by the clock moving through the ether. The faster the
atomic clock moves with respect to the state of the ether the more
ether the atomic clock displaces the greater the force of the
displaced ether exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock the
slower the clock ticks.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of
displacement of the ether in which it exists.
micro...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time is measured by space pressure rather than time continuum flow?
mpc755
Time is the interval between two events. In the twin gedanken one twin
takes off in a spaceship and the other twin remains on Earth. The
starting event is when they separate. The ending event is when they
get back together. Since they agree on the starting event and the
ending event and agree time is the interval between the two events
they both agree the same amount of time passed for the twin on the
spaceship and the twin who remained on Earth.
It doesn't matter how many times each twins atomic clock ticked during
their separation because the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a
physical process determined by the state of the aether in which it
exists and has nothing to do with time.
So, the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state
of displacement of the aether in which it exists. This has nothing to
do with time.
Here is the present definition of a second:
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom.
Here is a more correct definition of a second:
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom [at sea level].
So, if you take an atomic clock onto a space ship and it does not tick
at the same rate as a similar clock at sea level then time has not
changed, the atomic clock is simply ticking at a different rate.
micro...@hotmail.com
But intervals are continuous by nature and can be slower and faster.
When you accelerate time slows down and passes though all rates
inbetween
which is transcendental by math. Changing gravity force posesses all
strengths
inbetween in its own continuum.
> In the twin gedanken one twin
> takes off in a spaceship and the other twin remains on Earth. The
> starting event is when they separate. The ending event is when they
> get back together. Since they agree on the starting event and the
> ending event and agree time is the interval between the two events
> they both agree the same amount of time passed for the twin on the
> spaceship and the twin who remained on Earth.
>
> It doesn't matter how many times each twins atomic clock ticked during
> their separation because the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a
> physical process determined by the state of the aether in which it
> exists and has nothing to do with time.
>
> So, the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state
> of displacement of the aether in which it exists. This has nothing to
> do with time.
>
> Here is the present definition of a second:
>
> the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
> of the caesium-133 atom.
We can't do that. It is too small.
Sciences experiments are always involving some kind of lie about what
they can achieve.
I challenge anyone on that account. Science and especially so called
modern experimentation are loaded with lies and go on uncorrected when
they need be. But who is going to do it?
Who is going to admit first that they are wrong? that scientfic basis
is just begining and is not objective and has rejected their chosen
leader in his objectivity. I am refering to Albert Einstein.
Not the world of science. But not all scientists. There will be a
handfull I know willing and ready to see what is wrong.
>
> Here is a more correct definition of a second:
>
> the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
> of the caesium-133 atom [at sea level].
>
> So, if you take an atomic clock onto a space ship and it does not tick
> at the same rate as a similar clock at sea level then time has not
> changed, the atomic clock is simply ticking at a different rate.- Hide quoted text -
1treePetrifiedForestLane
micro...@hotmail.com
Time is the flow between events.
> In the twin gedanken one twin
> takes off in a spaceship and the other twin remains on Earth. The
> starting event is when they separate. The ending event is when they
> get back together. Since they agree on the starting event and the
> ending event and agree time is the interval between the two events
> they both agree the same amount of time passed for the twin on the
> spaceship and the twin who remained on Earth.
>
> It doesn't matter how many times each twins atomic clock ticked during
> their separation because the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a
> physical process determined by the state of the aether in which it
> exists and has nothing to do with time.
>
> So, the rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state
> of displacement of the aether in which it exists. This has nothing to
> do with time.
>
> Here is the present definition of a second:
>
> the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
> of the caesium-133 atom.
>
> Here is a more correct definition of a second:
>
> the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
> to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
> of the caesium-133 atom [at sea level].
>
> So, if you take an atomic clock onto a space ship and it does not tick
> at the same rate as a similar clock at sea level then time has not
> changed, the atomic clock is simply ticking at a different rate.- Hide quoted text -
1treePetrifiedForestLane
micro...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> wow, genius slows-down, two!
>
>
>
> > So, if you take an atomic clock onto a space ship and it does not tick
> > at the same rate as a similar clock at sea level then time has not
>
> - Show quoted text -
Acceleration and gravity's strength slow time.
There must be a fastest beginning time to
slow from. There are two times: SR and GR.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
its only relevance is in computing "scalar relativistical efects,"
namely relative time, length, mass, in our famous "undefined elements"
of dimensional analysis.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
is completely silly, as in syllogistic, as in the trivium
of logic, grammar & rhetoric, or "the three Are's"
of a dumbschool ... I mean, it worked very well
for Helen Keller.
"go ... take ... a long swim ...
in a very short desert ocean."
"W .. A .. T .. E .. RRRRRRRR!"
micro...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Acceleration in SR is not GR. But both have their own time to slow
down.
But in this universe SR and GR are joined mathematically as two times
in One flow
for matter. Rotation or circular turn speed should belong in SR but it
is a steady
speed that has a weight; and that is the exception. The Earth's own
circular turn rates
create an opposite weight to gravity force's weight; especially
at the equator where you weigh least.
Mitch raemsch