Re: Eotvos.
- From: "em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:18:40 +1100
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:fpGef.113$xu.64@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dear em:
>
> "em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerdo> wrote in message
> news:437aaebe$0$24390$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:METdf.86$6u6.7@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> That is good enough for me. I'll I'll put my money on
>> WEP EEP and GR and declare them absolute.
>
> That isn't science, and it won't allow advancement of same. But it is
> your right.
I think if they had produced a non-null result we would be all hearing about
it.
So it looks like it produced a null result and actually now flips the other
way to now provide yet more evidence confirming the EEP.
>>>> I think an expanding Aether would overcome all need
>>>> to ascribe a need to suppose there exist other
>>>> dimensions.
>>
>>> It would have to be expanding on very large scales, to
>>> avoid detection. And any such expansion would not
>>> be a Loretnz aether.
>>
>> If every Aetheric particle in the universe was
>> simultaneously expanding at the same rate, in such
>> manner that all rulers and units of measure, even the wave length of
>> light would also have to be effected by
>> this expansion.
>
> Not really. The Lorentz aether isn't comprised of particles. And clocks
> are it's spawn also.
I don't know why you even bought it up. Never said it was.
The aether is still very much a work in progress.
Nobody has yet pinned it down.
>> If the propagation of light was indeed mediated by say
>> the propagation of a longitudinal vacuum wave
>
> ... transverse
A media such as the Aether would not have the physical properties to even
begin to propagate a transversal wave.
It would only be physically capable of propagating a longitudinal wave. This
would now make a lot of sense when we consider how the likes of a television
antenna is actually constructed.
>> then as the particles of Aether increased in size, so too would the
>> frequency of any event be
>> automatically carried with it.
>
> Frequency variations are taken care of by the clock.
Yes, and the clock would remain unchanged. The wave length and amplitude
would increase as the metric they depend expands.
>>>> Wise move and I myself too consider be patient.
>>>> So... I just ask without committing. But... I say...
>>>> it does seems a little drafty in here. Do you
>>>> suppose we are sitting here waiting for a train
>>>> that is not coming?
>>>
>>> Who is waiting? I have things to keep me busy.
>>
>> I was. I had given him the benefit of the doubt.
>> Even though I considered it would not come to
>> anything, one has always to remain open here as
>> we are dealing with the mysteries of nature,
>> physics and at the same time political and institutional agendas,
>> anything could happen.
>>
>>>> Oh... and the other thing... what ever happened to that
>>>> GravityB probe?
>>>
>>> Being analyzed. Looking for a silly whilimeter. Right
>>> at the edge of the budget.
>>
>> Cheques all cleared no doubt. (Sound of crickets in a
>> hollow.) I thought the offices were looking a little
>> abandoned.
>>
>> I heard they have been having a spot of software
>> problems, system crashes, reboots, etc.
>
> Sounds like Windoze...
Yeah. Pre-ordained to go to sleep after the cheque has cleared. (-:
>>>> i.e.... like no frame drag or worst still, no
>>>> physical space/time curvature to speak of?
>>>
>>> Already been observed, documented, and
>>> published, involving much less money.
>>> Relativity and Lorentz aether are two sides
>>> of the same coin (a statement I'll no doubt
>>> get flack for). They both go down together, so hold on for the results.
>>
>> Yes, I do not think space actually curves either
>> as a gyroscope in orbit will well testify.
>
> No, frame dragging has been detected.
I said curvature. A gyroscope in obit will not change the orientation of its
axis to prove that space is curved. It will remain fixed at what ever it is
pointed at. So the question begging to be answered is what is actually
bending?
And as far as the frame dragging is concerned I will wait until all side
have had their chance to speak. I will be patient.
>> I am thinking more the geodesic is not caused
>> by a physical curvature of space
>
> ...spaceTIME
It is only space taken over time to account for the geodesic. Space is not
at all curved in the slightest physical sense to speak of. But the whole
metric is under a state of constant acceleration, and to take into account
this state of motion it is rather important to be specific and call it
spacetime.
>> more so the expansion of space itself and the
>> earth racing up to met it.
>
> That fails on so many levels.
OTOH there is much standing for it that refuses to be swept aside no matter
how hard so many people try.
The equivalence principle no matter how hard you knock it... is not going
anywhere. As a matter of personal speculation, I think the remaining
paradigm could very well shift, that is all merger to be absorbed into a
single metric base theory well before the EP collapses.
So each to his own and crossing fingers it's resolved in our life time.
em
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Eotvos.
- References:
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: em
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: em
- Re: Eotvos.
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Eotvos.
- Prev by Date: Re: johnreed take 1B --- 2005
- Next by Date: Re: A little challenge for relativists.
- Previous by thread: Re: Eotvos.
- Next by thread: Re: Eotvos.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
