Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: aether and the painted ponny 2

Expand Messages
  • cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne.jp
    In a message dated 6/30/00 3:05:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... necessarily ... length. ... Relativists ought to accept, then, that a real and physical length
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 30, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 6/30/00 3:05:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      daniel.lapadatu@... writes:

      > [DL] You have to think a little deeper. A wave of metric does not
      necessarily
      > map a real wave in the aether or what you consider of being instead of
      > vacuum.
      > (snip)
      > The length of a platinum rod containing 1000 atoms is fixed by the
      >electromagnetic waves exchanged between the platinum ions.
      >If these waves are Doppler shifted, the rod itself will Doppler-shift its
      length.
      >
      Relativists ought to accept, then, that a real and physical length
      deformation occurs, rather than "only as measured by a differently moving
      observer".

      >The interval between the event of emission of the photon and the absorbtion
      >of the photon is NULL. In ALL FRAMES.
      In spacetime mathematics, the emission event is in a different slice of the
      4-d
      manifold than that of the absorbtion. ALL 4-d co-ordinate systems will find
      that
      the interval is unequal to zero.

      >If RT says that spacetime is not Euclidian, why do you try to dismiss it by
      >thinking in an Euclidian space?
      Does RT admit that spacetime is non-euclidean? That differently moving
      ST systems are non-euclidean? That differently moving systems really do
      physically deform, thus so does each attached space and time?
      I don't think exclusively in euclidean space and time. I KNOW that
      Minkowski
      spacetime, whether inertially or acceleratingly moving, is non-euclidean;
      wherefore so is STR's. How do I know that? Because I've done the
      mathematics
      that proves it.

      >Even GRT predicts that spacetime cannot be ultimately continous: it breaks
      >down at high energies or low distances/short times. Yet GRT's principles are
      >correct.
      That's a contradiction in terms. If it breaks down at the perimeters, how
      can its
      principles be correct?

      > The differential equations are correct.
      Agreed. The question is: What do they map?
      (The presently accepted answers are incorrect.)

      >Now, about your painted ponny paper that Claude sent to me:
      A copy of the whole book or only the relatively unimportant part on my
      webpage?
      Appendixes 2, 3 and 4 critique Lorentz, Einstein and Minkowski respectively.
      Note: "critique" means explains the mathematical and physical theory per
      person.
      Insofar as Lorentz is concerned, the critique explains but - other than as to
      his
      premise that an incompressible stationary ether permeates the universe -
      doesn't
      disagree. As to the other two, it proves them wrong; both conceptually and
      mathematically.

      >2. I disagree with the painted ponny mechanism. It's flawed and you wasted a
      >lot of time right from the beginning.
      It is stipulated in the text that the mechanism won't work! But for a
      different reason
      than that given by STR. The real message of that book is in the Appendixes.

      >Do you really believe that working with absolute space and time and variable
      >light speed and variable electronic charge is much easier than the other way
      round?
      >
      No. The ST, GT and spacetime equations work fine. My thesis is that the
      reason
      they do so is based on the physical deformations that happen to moving bodies
      and attached coordinate systems that CAUSE the equations to be correct. On
      what happens that CAUSES esynching to work fine, in the resulting equations.
      On
      what's really and physically happening that lets the map accurately portray
      the territory.

      >PS I had already gone through a lot of those things with Caroline and I have
      >no intention of doing it again. Unless you come with a serious proposal.
      Start with "Einstein's Four Light Postulates",
      http://members.aol.com/glird/4lps.htm

      Caroline wondered why i "waste time" arguing the meaning of the
      relativistic equations. Note, then, that most of Daniel's arguments are based
      on the present interpretations of what those equations mean! So are those of
      all physicists.
      Until they can be convinced that those interpretations are false, rather than
      the equations themselves, none of them will pay serious attention to
      dissident ideas.
      Since the only way to so convince them is by purely mathematical arguments,
      that's the reason why i spend so much time on this ultimately unimportant
      task.
      Why "ultimately unimportant"? Because once everyone agrees that the
      Physics
      of STR is incorrect, STR will disappear and only the metaphysics of the
      physical structures the equations validly treat will remain important.
      {As of now, the very term "metaphysics" is anathema to most physicists.
      That,
      nevertheless, is what "theoretical physics" does treat.}

      glird
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.