The Aether Theory of Relativity

[marengo]

“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.”

Time is distance moved at the speed of light. If you want to know how matter relates to time when matter does not move at the speed of light then I suggest you read my paper on Time.

BUT this is not the right thread to discuss Time. It is about the Aether Theory of Relativity.

[viscount aero]

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.

Mathematically speaking yes. I'm glad he is. Someone needs to.

[marengo]

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

I have explained that it is a more fundamental frame than the Aether. I have said this many times. I know no more. One does not need to know any more in order to establish my Aether theories. I cannot explain the whole Universe. Currently I am trying to explain one part of it. Be satisfied.

[marengo]

Recap

I think I have shown conclusively that the effects of relativity do happen.
So we need a theory which predicts those effects from a more fundamental start point.
Einstein produced Special Relativity to that effect. I believe it to be a load of rubbish for many reasons.
If that is agreed it follows that the correct theory must be found. I am proposing the Aether Theory of Relativity.
If that is the correct theory then it follows that Space is an Aether.
That changes the whole of physics to one degree or another.
This goal is surely worth pursuing.

[marengo]

I would like to make one more general point.
No physicist, dead or alive or indeed in the future, can know everything about how the Universe works.
Physicist can only describe parts of that understanding. Those parts are inevitably bordered by unknown areas.

Many posters on this thread confine their comments and questions to those unknown areas rather than to the area and theory in question. There is no sense to this and one wonders why it is done. Is it some sort of scientific vandalism?

[marengo]

to Michael V
Solve eqn 11.1 as a quadratic using the formula. The part in the square root bracket needs a bit of fiddling with but you will find that gamma comes out of the fiddling. 11.2 is definitely correct.

[viscount aero]

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

I have explained that it is a more fundamental frame than the Aether. I have said this many times. I know no more. One does not need to know any more in order to establish my Aether theories. I cannot explain the whole Universe. Currently I am trying to explain one part of it. Be satisfied.

I'm not asking you to explain the whole universe. No theory does. At best we can explain parts of it. Scientists (particularly cosmologists) are obsessed with a "theory of everything." And so far they haven't found it. I don't expect or need them to. But your answer is typical when asked about many parts of your theory. You say nearly the same things in conclusion--basically that you have explained it enough and for the reader to be ok with that. And that you have conclusively shown something, so it can no longer be questioned. This makes you into an unsympathetic character. That and the fact that 90% of members here have come to the conclusion that Einstein's relativity is largely false and antagonistic to reality you will have a difficult time gaining traction with your theory.

Most people here do not believe in length contraction or time dilation. Because you are unsympathetic and that your version of relativity theory asks readers to believe something they have no interest in believing (or have recovered from believing) your audience will largely be counter-antagonistic to you. You would probably do better with this theory on a mainstream board such as physorg or physicsforums as relativity is a mainstream belief system and almost all members who post on those forums are mathematicians who believe in mainstream math-based cosmology.

Your theory is less about an aether and more about re-establishing an already established idea of relativity. Adding an aether to it doesn't help. Einstein himself believed initially in the aether. So you are faced with a conundrum: The mainstream has long rejected an aether but kept relativity. EU theory has long rejected relativity but kept the aether. You are a man without a country. In this way I do sympathize. It's a difficult place to be.

[kevin]

“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.”

Time is distance moved at the speed of light. If you want to know how matter relates to time when matter does not move at the speed of light then I suggest you read my paper on Time.

BUT this is not the right thread to discuss Time. It is about the Aether Theory of Relativity.

How do You know there is any speed of light.
IMHO light occurs in the location it occurs, and it only occurs where opposing field meet.
Kevin

[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

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.

@David: will be with you shortly.

Marengo.

Your response totally ignores the evidence presented by A.G. Kelly which falsifies the relativistic notion of "time dilation" using the unpublished data of the Hafele-Keating experiment acquired through the Freedom of Information Act. Does physics also work by sticking one's head in the sand when there is evidence to the contrary of a theory's predictions? One of the pillars of your theory appears to have fallen. Do you plan to comment on this as opposed to simply reifying the principle of what a postulate ask one to do?

By the way: By way of extrapolation one of the principle dynamics of your very own theory should have also falsified "time dilation".

[marengo]

Most people here do not believe in length contraction or time dilation. Because you are unsympathetic and that your version of relativity theory asks readers to believe something they have no interest in believing (or have recovered from believing) your audience will largely be counter-antagonistic to you. You would probably do better with this theory on a mainstream board such as physorg or physicsforums as relativity is a mainstream belief system and almost all members who post on those forums are mathematicians who believe in mainstream math-based cosmology.

I thought that I had conclusively shown via the LHC that relativity effects do occur. I would like to hear from other posters whether they agree or disagree that the protons in the LHC have a mass some 15000 times their rest mass.

Why am I unsympathetic. Are you trying to smear my character as you have done before.

I cant make people interested but here is an avenue to correct the fairy tale physics turned out by mainstream physics. I would have thought that would have been of great interest. I AM NOT A MAINSTREAM PHYSICIST.

The reason why you and I have not hit it off is this. In none of your many posts have you asked a single question of my theory. Instead you constantly want to change the postulates.If you dont like my postulates you are free to go off and invent your own, derive a new theory from them and put it on a forum for discussion just as I have done.

[marengo]

Your response totally ignores the evidence presented by A.G. Kelly which falsifies the relativistic notion of "time dilation" using the unpublished data of the Hafele-Keating experiment acquired through the Freedom of Information Act. Does physics also work by sticking one's head in the sand when there is evidence to the contrary of a theory's predictions? One of the pillars of your theory appears to have fallen. Do you plan to comment on this as opposed to simply reifying the principle of what a postulate ask one to do?

The Hafele-Keating experiment measures very small changes which can be easily argued over.
On the other hand the LHC proton mass is 15000 times its rest mass. How do you deny relativity effects in the face of such a huge difference. Who is sticking who's head in the sand?
One must not confuse the mess of Einstein's theory of relativity with the fact of its occurrence in nature.

[viscount aero]

Most people here do not believe in length contraction or time dilation. Because you are unsympathetic and that your version of relativity theory asks readers to believe something they have no interest in believing (or have recovered from believing) your audience will largely be counter-antagonistic to you. You would probably do better with this theory on a mainstream board such as physorg or physicsforums as relativity is a mainstream belief system and almost all members who post on those forums are mathematicians who believe in mainstream math-based cosmology.

I thought that I had conclusively shown via the LHC that relativity effects do occur. I would like to hear from other posters whether they agree or disagree that the protons in the LHC have a mass some 15000 times their rest mass.

Why am I unsympathetic. Are you trying to smear my character as you have done before.

I cant make people interested but here is an avenue to correct the fairy tale physics turned out by mainstream physics. I would have thought that would have been of great interest. I AM NOT A MAINSTREAM PHYSICIST.

The reason why you and I have not hit it off is this. In none of your many posts have you asked a single question of my theory. Instead you constantly want to change the postulates.If you dont like my postulates you are free to go off and invent your own, derive a new theory from them and put it on a forum for discussion just as I have done.

I have asked questions about your theory. Most of my questions concern what you are saying behind your use of terms. My questions are very simple and you don't answer them. For example I have asked what you meant about aether velocity:

"The Aether theory needs to make just one assumption to arrive at this result:- that the Lorentz Transform equations apply to material bodies and potential fields as functions of absolute Aether velocity."

I will ask you again: What do you mean by "aether velocity"? It's a very simple question.

By "aether velocity" do you mean any velocity that takes place within the aether? Or do you mean that the aether itself is moving? What do you mean? Your papers are fraught with these kinds of vague things that I am simply trying to understand. Instead of responding with contempt for my questions by not answering them, why not instead answer them?

[marengo]

By "aether velocity" do you mean any velocity that takes place within the aether? Or do you mean that the aether itself is moving? What do you mean? Your papers are fraught with these kinds of vague things that I am simply trying to understand. Instead of responding with contempt for my questions by not answering them, why not instead answer them?

Yes, you did ask that question. I thought you were pulling my leg.
Velocity must be relative to something. When I say 'Aether velocity' i am implying that the 'something' is the Aether. In other words Aether velocity is velocity through the Aether with respect to the Aether substance. For example the speed of light is an Aether velocity.

To go on a bit. Thus length contraction, time dilation and mass increase are all functions of Aether (sometimes called absolute) velocity. However these effects can never be observed (for various reasons).
Please take these steps one at a time. They may appear incomprehensible at first but I assure you that they eventually come together to correctly predict the observed effects of relativity.

[Solar]

Thus length contraction, time dilation and mass increase are all functions of Aether (sometimes called absolute) velocity. However these effects can never be observed (for various reasons).
Please take these steps one at a time. They may appear incomprehensible at first but I assure you that they eventually come together to correctly predict the observed effects of relativity.

Might you explain how the above is not contradicting itself? It says on the one hand that "these effects can never be observed (for various reasons)." Then it says "...they eventually come together to correctly predict the observed effects of relativity." - which are supposedly "length contraction, time dilation and mass increase".

Did I miss something?

[viscount aero]

By "aether velocity" do you mean any velocity that takes place within the aether? Or do you mean that the aether itself is moving? What do you mean? Your papers are fraught with these kinds of vague things that I am simply trying to understand. Instead of responding with contempt for my questions by not answering them, why not instead answer them?

Yes, you did ask that question. I thought you were pulling my leg.
Velocity must be relative to something. When I say 'Aether velocity' i am implying that the 'something' is the Aether. In other words Aether velocity is velocity through the Aether with respect to the Aether substance. For example the speed of light is an Aether velocity.

To go on a bit. Thus length contraction, time dilation and mass increase are all functions of Aether (sometimes called absolute) velocity. However these effects can never be observed (for various reasons).
Please take these steps one at a time. They may appear incomprehensible at first but I assure you that they eventually come together to correctly predict the observed effects of relativity.

Ok thank you I understand that idea now. See how easy and painless that was?