The Aether Theory of Relativity

[viscount aero]

Ok I'll even give you time dilation but the planes with clocks test doesn't prove anything whatever to do with relativity. In fact no test with physical clocks can ever test for relativity. That is my main point (for now).

OK. So you now accept that time dilation does occur.
Then surely it must occur in the Hafele-Keating experiment. It is a classic case of two synchronized clocks parting and taking different journeys before re-uniting. See my reply to Aardwolf above.

I am allowing you time dilation as a "for instance." Let's say it does exist. Ok. If it did exist then there couldn't be a test for it regardless. How can you objectively test for a subjective perception in each LIF? I say that you cannot. Nobody can. If they can then it cannot be with clocks. Therefore the Hafele-Keating experiment is a misdirect and erroneous. It didn't test for relativity. The time differentials on the clocks mean something else, not time dilation.

[Solar]

Solar,

Thanks for that. Of all the supposed examples of relativistic effects quoted by marengo, the "mass increase" of LHC protons is the only one that is not immediately available to explanation. In part this is due to the enormous cloud of relativistic haze intrinsic to the notion of "a quantum mechanical truth to be found in particle accelerators". From looking at the "details" of the detector experiments, it is very quickly apparent that the detection methodology is based on a set of theoretically defined inferences: if...if...if...if...if...if...if...if....then, tadah!, it must be true - although that may also be said, to some extent, about all detection and observation. Of course, my scepticism (and sarcasm) doesn't provide me any immunity from being wrong; I'm sure you would agree with that.


Michael

Michael
I agree; that is an excellent point. That is one of the crucial distinctions that often gets over looked even when reading popularized scientific media. The if…, maybe…, possibly…, perhaps…, could be…, and ‘scientist think…’ speculative indicators that dot the language. It’s all too easy to bypass them. Here is perhaps an example of the indiscriminate use of the electron volt (eV); the energy term:

From the name, electron volt, you might guess that this has something to do with electricity. Well, you’d be right, it does … but did you know that the electron volt is actually a unit of energy, like the erg or joule?
(…)
Astronomers use electron volts to measure the energy of electromagnetic radiation, or photons, in the x-ray and gamma-ray wavebands of the electromagnetic spectrum, and also use electron volts to describe the difference in atomic or molecular energy states
(…)
Now particle physicists use the electron volt, as a unit of energy too; however, confusingly, they also use it as a unit of mass!
(…)
Oh, and in some branches of physics, the eV is also a unit of temperature! – Universe Today

Likewise, because of the "mass-equivalency" idea, the term "mass" seems to be applied to any quality that exhibits a form of extension (density, weight, energy, etc.)

[Solar]

I don't think he has an argument either because he hasn't clarified his relativistic terminology to point to any real distinction between his work and the fuzzy nomenclature of a typical Relativist. It is vital that Marengo do this with AToR; not to mention with his on the fly explanations. The particle collisions are energetic electromagnetic interactions (electromagnetic showers, ionization, cascades etc); not billiards balls of "matter". They, the "particles", are energy constructs.

If you find anything unclear in my explanations then why not choose something specific for me to reply to rather than continually make airy and obscure accusations.
Of all the posts that have appeared on this thread NO-ONE has argued in a specific manner.
The only person to attempt to get down to real points was Michael V.
I am afraid that I must interpret your obscurity as having nothing of any real importance to say.

By the way, I have never said that particles are 'billiard balls' of matter. My Aether theory dictates that there is no substance of matter. You are another one who find it too much trouble to read my 30 page booklet.

We are having some fundamental communication problems. I never said that it was you who said that there was such a thing as “billiard balls of matter”:

As the Aether properties deny the existence of a special matter substance it follows that matter must be constructed of the Aether itself - of necessity of some form of complex and unknown geometry of elevated electric and gravitational potentials. The objection put forward of the difficulty of the movement of the matter substance through the Aether substance now disappears as matter is not a special substance but of the Aether… - AToR

The statement was with regard to the overwhelming use of the term “mass” as an indiscriminate catchall for anything that exhibits volumetric extension. Thus, I referred to “particles” as “energy constructs” instead of “matter”. I've already rendered my suggestions in previous post as well. You are making the reading of your treatise and dialoging with you about it unnecessarily difficult.

[viscount aero]

We are having some fundamental communication problems. I never said that it was you who said that there was such a thing as “billiard balls of matter”:

I've already rendered my suggestions in previous post as well. You are making the reading of your treatise and dialoging with you about it unnecessarily difficult.

You are vastly understating the situation here.

[marengo]

I am allowing you time dilation as a "for instance." Let's say it does exist. Ok. If it did exist then there couldn't be a test for it regardless. How can you objectively test for a subjective perception in each LIF? I say that you cannot. Nobody can. If they can then it cannot be with clocks. Therefore the Hafele-Keating experiment is a misdirect and erroneous. It didn't test for relativity. The time differentials on the clocks mean something else, not time dilation.

You say you cant test for time dilation.
I have given you the test of two clocks parting and re-uniting. What, I ask you, is subjective in comparing the reading of two clocks stationary and side by side.

[marengo]

The statement was with regard to the overwhelming use of the term “mass” as an indiscriminate catchall for anything that exhibits volumetric extension. Thus, I referred to “particles” as “energy constructs” instead of “matter”. I've already rendered my suggestions in previous post as well. You are making the reading of your treatise and dialoging with you about it unnecessarily difficult.

I see mass as a necessary term in the following equations, F = ma, E = mc^2 and E = mv^2/2.
I do not see how we can do away with the 'concept' of mass. After all we feel the force F when lifting a mass m in the accelerating field 'a' of Earth's gravity every day of our lives.

It is absolute nonsense to try to do away with mass just because you dont believe in its relativistic effects.

It is always difficult to convince people of something they don't wish to be convinced of.

[marengo]

You are vastly understating the situation here.

Please see my last sentence to solar in the post above.

Let me tell you this. I have been friends with a couple for many years. They take an interest in my work in physics although neither of them have any background in it in any way. Now I say this with all honesty and truthfulness; I have had far more intelligent questions from the lady, who is just a housewife, than ever I have had on this forum.

[Solar]

It is always difficult to convince people of something they don't wish to be convinced of.

Where are the electrical based experiments lending support to AToR?

[viscount aero]

I am allowing you time dilation as a "for instance." Let's say it does exist. Ok. If it did exist then there couldn't be a test for it regardless. How can you objectively test for a subjective perception in each LIF? I say that you cannot. Nobody can. If they can then it cannot be with clocks. Therefore the Hafele-Keating experiment is a misdirect and erroneous. It didn't test for relativity. The time differentials on the clocks mean something else, not time dilation.

You say you cant test for time dilation.
I have given you the test of two clocks parting and re-uniting. What, I ask you, is subjective in comparing the reading of two clocks stationary and side by side.

That isn't a test. That is a thought experiment only, just as what Einstein's theory largely is--an elaborate (and highly innovative) thought experiment. Yes that is a kind of a test. But you have done no physical test. Nor has anyone done a test for relativity who has flown atomic clocks on planes. This test cannot be actually done because each local inertial reference frame is subjective whereby the relative observations for each LIF are true for each LIF--therefore the "remote" and "local" reference frame is the same for every observer. Einstein himself concluded that "every reference frame has its own particular time. Unless we consider the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."

Therefore which clock is absolutely slower or faster? There is no answer. They are both simultaneously the same condition to each other. Each reference frame is both inertial and non-inertial to each other----a paradox which cannot be reconciled physically.

To then come along, retroactively speaking, and conduct a so-called "test" with planes and clocks to "prove" relativity is astoundingly laughable considering what Einstein himself postulated about time.

To add, your animations describing your alleged time dilation test describe nothing. Moreover, I've watched several animation videos produced by others explaining relativity to the layperson and I have learned a great deal from them. But I challenge anyone on this forum to gain any knowledge or insight into relativity by watching your animations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6CkMJ8RiDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igEaknVh3ig

If anyone here feels they have been comprehensively edified about relativity per the above videos please remark about it so I can answer the question "is it just me or is marengo not understandable in general?"

[viscount aero]

You are vastly understating the situation here.

Please see my last sentence to solar in the post above.

Let me tell you this. I have been friends with a couple for many years. They take an interest in my work in physics although neither of them have any background in it in any way. Now I say this with all honesty and truthfulness; I have had far more intelligent questions from the lady, who is just a housewife, than ever I have had on this forum.

So now it is the whole forum you are lambasting and no longer individual members. The truth comes out eventually. This classifies you as a troll and you should be banned.

[marengo]

Where are the electrical based experiments lending support to AToR?

Why do I need an electrically based experiment?
What is wrong with the two clock experiment that i keep describing.
You may recall that one clock observes the other to be FAST. That implies time contraction. Einsteins' theory cannot predict time contraction. But the AToR does. Its all explained in my papers. Try reading them sometime.

[marengo]

That isn't a test. That is a thought experiment only, just as what Einstein's theory largely is--an elaborate (and highly innovative) thought experiment. Yes that is a kind of a test. But you have done no physical test. Nor has anyone done a test for relativity who has flown atomic clocks on planes. This test cannot be actually done because each local inertial reference frame is subjective whereby the relative observations for each LIF are true for each LIF--therefore the "remote" and "local" reference frame is the same for every observer. Einstein himself concluded that "every reference frame has its own particular time. Unless we consider the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."

What do you mean it is not a test. I have just taken two identical clocks and tried it out. OK, thats not quite true. I dont have clocks accurate enough to measure the small difference. But if I did have then I could do it. Hafele and Keating did it.

The rest of your quote is pure muddle.One does not need to concern yourself with IRFs. None exist on Earth anyway.
You seem to be allowing Einstein to confuse you. I thought you did not agree with him.

[marengo]

Therefore which clock is absolutely slower or faster? There is no answer. They are both simultaneously the same condition to each other. Each reference frame is both inertial and non-inertial to each other----a paradox which cannot be reconciled physically.

Pure muddle again. Einstein states there is no absolute frame. I say there is but you cant detect it. So one cannot measure anything in absolute terms. IRFs dont come into it. There are just two clocks and all you do is read them. I have never known a man make the reading of two clocks as difficult as you do. You seem to be in a complete state of confusion.

[marengo]

So now it is the whole forum you are lambasting and no longer individual members. The truth comes out eventually. This classifies you as a troll and you should be banned.

I am merely stating a fact.

[marengo]

to viscount aero.
You should make up your mind whether you believe in Einstein's Special Relativity or not. Some times you do and sometimes you dont.

IRFs are purely mathematical constructs to aid calculation. They are not physical and they do not occur on Earth (or indeed anywhere). They require zero acceleration which is impossible to attain ( rather like Absolute Zero temp.)