The Aether Theory of Relativity

[Aardwolf]

You mean you're assuming they would be different while also assuming the stucture of an electron and assuming how it should behave.

Dont you believe that electrons orbit the nucleus in specific shells?

I believe such a theory exists.

Any way I had another thought. The Large Hadron collider fires protons at a target at an energy of 7 teravolts. Without relativistic mass effect it would only get to 1/15000 of that. Work out the figures for yourself.
So according to you the LHC cant get to 7teravolts. But we mustn't let your beliefs be damaged by facts, must we?

More relativistic nonsense. The mass is never measured, only the energy released is measured, and this is just the conversion of kinetic energy. The mass never increases. Even Einstein rejected that crap;

It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/√(1 - v2/c2) of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

Apparently CERN does measure the "mass":

No it doesn't. They use calorimeters to measure the energy of the particle (technically this is the average of a group). Any conversion to mass is theoretical. Any conversion to relativistic mass is just confusing nonsense, it's kinetic energy, which is why the term relativistic mass has been all but abandoned.

[viscount aero]

m/mp = 7460.52 as before

You get 7461, I got 15000. The difference is not important as both figures prove that the relativistic mass effect exists.

You're not reading properly, that figure was not my conclusion. It was a researcher's conclusion. I was posting his results that support the idea of relativistic mass increase. Can you not read properly? I was defending your position that CERN measures "mass"--so they allege.

[viscount aero]

To this, I'm somewhat baffled this thread has even gone on as long as it has. If anyone can interpret the above except from the aether pages then I will eat my hat.

That is not a scientific comment.
Please state one example of what you dont understand and I will explain. But please do not ask a question about the Aether properties. I couldn't stand it after what I have already said many times over.

LOL! <moderator edit> I began posting your aetherpages herein because virtually NONE of it is comprehensible. You don't explain anything--that is my whole point! People have inquired, for example, about "sub-aether." This has been mentioned numerous times--all ignored!

[viscount aero]

Apparently CERN does measure the "mass":

No it doesn't. They use calorimeters to measure the energy of the particle (technically this is the average of a group). Any conversion to mass is theoretical. Any conversion to relativistic mass is just confusing nonsense, it's kinetic energy, which is why the term relativistic mass has been all but abandoned.

I wanted to hear your reply as I was pointing out that CERN does measure "mass" (which I put in quotes to denote an allegation). Personally I don't believe in "rest mass" per the mainstream's insistence of its use as a real measuring device as photons, electrons, etc are never at rest. Therefore a "rest mass" equivalence is nonsense. But CERN does measure "mass"

[viscount aero]

Comments and criticisms please to MrAether

If you accept its validity please recommend this website to a Professor of Physics."

What is the point of being obscure?
Find a specific question and then ask it.

Are you serious? You are like talking to someone whose use of English is very poor. Are you from America? What is your first language?

This is what is going on with you:

1. English is not your best mode of expression as you are not from the United States or an English speaking nation. You are therefore excused and please accept my sympathies. I have asked you about your English before, however, and you refused to answer.

2. English is your first language but you are a poor communicator through it. Attempts to help you in this area have been fruitless thus far as you staunchly remain arrogant and stubborn to move an inch. You refuse to explain yourself when asked.

<moderator edit>

[Solar]

Individuals who assert that questioning postulates is something that one does not do, need to be questioned about the veracity their postulates. You're asking people to suspend their skills of critical thinking and discernment. Especially when a conclusion based on one of those postulates leads to the same erroneous “prediction” for something like “time dilation” for example. This concept simply does not exist:

"Pathological science often depends on experiments at the threshold of detectability, or at the lowest margins of statistical significance. The claims frequently emerge from a body of data that is selectively incomplete; wishful researchers unconsciously discard enough 'bad' data to make the remaining 'good' points look important. That the measurements are at the very threshold of sensitivity is an advantage, not an obstacle: data that don't fit the theory are explained away; those they fit are lovingly retained. - Peter Huber, "Galileo's Revenge", 1991, p27. – The Deception Deepens. Falsification of experimental results relating to the Theory of Relativity. From Al Kelly to Ivor Catt.

Relevant doc:

Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything? – A. G. Kelly

H & K avoided giving the actual test results in their paper; they gave figures that were radically altered from those results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data, are shown to be totally unjustified. - Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?

Mr. Kelly is being quite diplomatic. I’m just a normal guy. They lied.

Why on Earth would someone have to utilize the Freedom of Information Act to get something so simple as the results of a harmless experiment involving the flying two clocks while also monitoring a third??

Hafele Keating experiment

You know what is bizarre? As I watched that vid it became apparent that the psychology of everyone involved was obsessed with the concept of "Time" - and that - said concept was totally disconnected from any and everything regarding the numerous ambient fields that permeated even the subatomic interstices of their very own person. THAT is what influenced the atoms, and thereby the mechanics, of the clocks. Its remarkable how their glazed eyes and mindset treated “Time” as some other separate and distinct thing. "Time" is a man-made conceptual construct. "Dilation" only happens to physical things. The two terms are diametrically opposed to each other imho. I think Eric Dollard was right. Einstein's brand of Relativity is a "mind virus".

[David]

Solar,

Would you please comment of the following excerpt taken from the Miles Mathis web site:

“I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.”

“In this way time can be thought of as a distance measurement. When we measure distance, we measure movement. We measure the change in position. When we measure time, we measure the same thing, but give it another name. Why would we do this? Why give two names and two concepts to the same thing? Distance and Time. I say, in order to compare one to the other. Time is just a second, comparative, measurement of distance.”

--Miles Mathis (A Revaluation of Time)

I am still undecided on this issue, so I would very much appreciate hearing your take on the Miles Mathis definition of time.

Many thanks.

[Cavemann]

Are you implying that if you create a hermetically sealed empty chamber with no clock inside, that time doesn't exist in there?

[marengo]

To Michael V
First let me say that I applaud your efforts.
In the diagram point O is the origin of the x,y,z axes and is the current position of the moving charge.
The line r_r is the return signal from a second charge at point P. You will recall that I previously said that a charge cannot sense its own field. It requires a second charge to do so. So Charge A affects charge B , which in turn affects charge A.
I did not introduce gamma in order to solve the quadratic. First solve the quadratic and then simplify the algebra. This introduces gamma.

Regarding Aether pressure. Did you read appendix 1. It shows that Aether pressure is the electric potential. The same thing, just two names. I have no idea how pressure works within the Aether. I can only go so deep. Others may extend the work in years to come.

[marengo]

No it doesn't. They use calorimeters to measure the energy of the particle (technically this is the average of a group). Any conversion to mass is theoretical. Any conversion to relativistic mass is just confusing nonsense, it's kinetic energy, which is why the term relativistic mass has been all but abandoned.

Take E = mv^2/2, slot in E and v =c it gives you the mass. Which in the case of LHC is 15000 time the rest mass of the particle.
So either you accept relativity or find some other equation other than E = mv^2/2. I await your new equation with bated breath.

[marengo]

You're not reading properly, that figure was not my conclusion. It was a researcher's conclusion. I was posting his results that support the idea of relativistic mass increase. Can you not read properly? I was defending your position that CERN measures "mass"--so they allege.

Thank you for defending my conclusion on the effects of relativity on mass.

[marengo]

I began posting your aetherpages herein because virtually NONE of it is comprehensible. You don't explain anything--that is my whole point! People have inquired, for example, about "sub-aether." This has been mentioned numerous times--all ignored!

I have never ignored questions on the sub-Aether. I just dont have any more answers than I have already given.

[marengo]

Are you serious? You are like talking to someone whose use of English is very poor. Are you from America? What is your first language?

Michael V seems to be making better headway with my papers than you.

[marengo]

Individuals who assert that questioning postulates is something that one does not do, need to be questioned about the veracity their postulates. You're asking people to suspend their skills of critical thinking and discernment. Especially when a conclusion based on one of those postulates leads to the same erroneous “prediction” for something like “time dilation” for example. This concept simply does not exist

I have already explained that this is how physics works. If you dont like a theory and its postulates your only recourse is to invent some new postulates and generate your own theory from them. All theories must have their predictions tested against observations.

[viscount aero]

LOL! Are you f**** kidding? I began posting your aetherpages herein because virtually NONE of it is comprehensible. You don't explain anything--that is my whole point! People have inquired, for example, about "sub-aether." This has been mentioned numerous times--all ignored!

I have never ignored questions on the sub-Aether. I just dont have any more answers than I have already given.

You have never explained what it is. Do you have an analogy? Or should we drop the issue as it is not important?