Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 12/24/04
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: how to absorb G in adimensional analysis ?"
- In reply to: shevek: "Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories"
- Next in thread: shevek: "Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories"
- Reply: shevek: "Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:50:12 GMT
"shevek" <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103830236.940477.155070@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> kenseto wrote:
> > SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories. Why?
> > 1. SR and LET have the same math.
> > 2. SR and LET math is based on the assumption that the observer is at
> rest
> > in the ether.
>
> I disagree. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald ether theory that I think of leaves
> the observers speed relative to the ether arbitrary.
NO...only the rest frame of the ether can declare that all clocks moving wrt
to it are running at a slower rate and all rod moving wrt it are contracted.
So both SR and LET assumes the observer is at rest in the ether.
>
> >[snip]...existence of absolute time
> > and motion. [...]
>
> Certainly not required in any sensical theory.
It is required if you want a complete theory of motion such as the IRT.
>Why should motion with
> respect to local ether be "absolute"? Motion is always relative to the
> observer.
Motion wrt the rest frame of the ether is called absolute motion. The ether
is not moving. The observer is the one who is doing the moving.
>That is the misnomer of the theory of relativity: the
> postulate that one velocity (light) is NOT relative to observer motion.
> The idea might be more aptly described as the theory of
> non-relativity.
Motion of the observer wrt light is also absolute motion. Motion wrt light
can be detected using a defined absolute second or by doing one of the
following experiments:
1. do an OWLS experiment with two spatially separated and synchronized
clocks.
2. do the experiment described in the following link (page 3):
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
>
> > (4). Absolute time exists. The relationship between clock time and
> absolute
> > time is as follows: A clock second will contain a different amount of
> > absolute time in different state of absolute motion (different frames
> of
> > reference). The higher is the state of absolute motion of the clock
> the
> > higher is the absolute time content for a clock second.
>
> Why must you use the word 'absolute' ? 'Preferred' or 'proper' are
> preferred and more proper.
You can use what you want.
>
> > 3. GR gives the wrong rotational curve for galaxies. Again IRT has no
> > such problem because IRT includes the effects of dark matter in its
> > calculations.
> >
>
> Come on now.. GR can include 'dark matter' as well..
Sure it is added as an epicycle. IOW, add something to GR when observation
disagrees with GR.
>that's not a
> solution until you can identify the material and why it has the odd
> halo spatial distribution.
>
If the original GR is correct there is no need for the added dark matter.
IRT includes the effect of dark matter in its equations.
Ken Seto
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: how to absorb G in adimensional analysis ?"
- In reply to: shevek: "Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories"
- Next in thread: shevek: "Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories"
- Reply: shevek: "Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|