The Aether Theory of Relativity

[viscount aero]

... if c is "relative" how is it constant and fixed? ... How can c be relative when relativity is about keeping c at c?

The answer to this question is that c is a "constant" only by definition.

In his Science delusions talk Rupert Sheldrake shares a humorous story about these self imposed definitions with regard to the supposed “speed of light” and Nature’s supposed “constants”. Click forward to approximately 10:22 seconds:

The Science Delusion

Thus, we have different measured values for a condition but we’ve also paradoxically defined the condition as a constant (stochastic and probabilistic assumptions can form a working hypothesis; but do not constitute a fact). Similarly "Time" is defined to be what a clock "measures" but the definition has now become something automatically parroted as a truth. We make the definitions; then they become affixed as truths leaving us to wonder how, or whence the meanings came. We simply make them.

The anisotropy of light in coax and fiber optic ... is said to have been measured before. The last person to have accidentally measured this quality was a gentleman by the name of Roland De Witte (now deceased). It is the fact that Mr. De Witte accidentally discovered something that is of significance:

The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves

Mr. De Witte had a website with some of his data at one time; that is now gone unless it is on the internet archives website. Later, someone else downloaded the old website and had it reposted but I have lost that link also. Only one person now keeps the event Mr. De Witte discovered alive and correlates it with other data in order to try and show that not only did Mr. De Witte detect something of significance but also did Michaelson-Morely and a few others. That person is Reginald T. Cahill who refers to the Aether as “3-Space” and runs:

Process Physicis - Scientific Papers

Mr. Cahill is one of my favorites and has been for several years but it is imperative that one reads his works VERY carefully as it contains some of the language of today’s modern relativistic astrophysics. This is what AToR tries desperately to be but:

Thus there is no need for the Michelson-Morley experiment or indeed for any experiment designed to prove or disprove the existance of the Aether. – Aether Pages

That is the dagger in the heart of AToR.

Ok I understand what you mean now. I am a stickler for language and proper use of terms and clear explanations (which is why I don't get along with marengo, for example) so your reply is exactly what I was looking for. I have previously watched the Sheldrake lecture where he goes into the historical change in c as recorded throughout history. It is quite funny.

[marengo]

Ok. That's your opinion. Why can't you detect an absolute state?

I have already explained that many times before. What is the point of me explaining anything if you guys dont read it and remember it.

You must consider that your videos reveal absolutely nothing as they are currently presented. How do you arrive at absolute reference frames in your aether theory? If there is only an absolute state then nothing is relative.

This is ironic to classical relativity in that it actually does rely on an absolute state: light speed. Relativity entirely hinges upon c being constant and absolute. Ironic yes?

The absolute reference frame is a property of the Aether. I have told you this many times and it is stated in my papers.

About the HK experiment? I don't think so. The HK experiment is bunk. That is all I have been discussing about clocks for pages and pages. HK didn't test for relativity. They thought they were but they were not. The people involved were clearly smart and intelligent and must have surely considered that according to the very thing they were testing for they wouldn't have been able to test for it in the first place. Relativity can only largely remain a thought experiment. LIFs are subjective in Einstein's relativity. The HK experiment was about Einstein's relativity, not yours.

No physics there. Just your opinions which mean nothing. Please stick to physics.

[marengo]

Not sure what you mean by "classical relativity", but if you mean Einsteinian, then no, you are mistaken. Einstein's relativity is based on the constant measurement of c. In a physical universe this is quite obviously impossible. But in a mathematical model "time" and distance are just variables that can be freely adjusted.

In a physical universe where the speed of light is absolute, then time and distance must also be absolute. Unfortunately, all matter in the universe is travelling and in a state of acceleration, so the absolute measurement of time and distance is impossible.

Measuring the velocity of c is relatively simple. Except that one can only measure the two-way out and return transit.
Time and distance in the Aether is absolute but not in IRFs centered on matter bodies.

[marengo]

Whatever journey clock A observes clock B to take, will be exactly the same (mirrored) as the journey that clock B observers clock A to take. They can only observe each other and have no other fixed reference point to use to determine anything else. So, exactly how do you determine which clock ran fast and which clock ran slow?

I have already explained this. One journey may be faster and hence longer than the other.

[marengo]

Insisting that the electromagnetic energy input ultimately increases the mass, and then converts that mass into energy is the religious belief you cant let go of considering there is no evidence to support this process, only theory.

I prefer to accept the evidence as it's presented. If that unfortunately falsifies your theory then you need to go back to the drawing board.

I have said it many times before. If you want to do away with the concept of mass in order to hang on to your beliefs then carry on.

[marengo]

If you think I am mistaken regarding my posts please tell me and/or provide a link to the piece of equipment at CERN which directly measures the mass of the particles.

I have already explained that you cant measure mass directly. That doesn't mean that it does not exist.

[marengo]

No mate, in Einsteinian relativity, the speed of c is relative and constant. Einstein postulated that light-signals travel at c, relative to all observers. Personally, I don't see how this is not a definition of magic.

For once you are correct. It is magic. Einstein confuses the measure of c with the actual c.

[marengo]

It is a fact that no-one who posts on this thread understands Aether physics notwithstanding that I have put in much effort to explain it or that the explanation is also in my papers and booklet which is freely available.

The problem is this. You all have pre-conceived ideas which you want to hang onto for your own personal reasons.
I would like to remind you that physics is not about hanging onto pre-conceived ideas. It is about closely examining the evidence and the argument and ditching your pre-conceived idea if it fails on the strength of the application of cold logic.
Frankly I do not see much cold logic from current posters.

[marengo]

It is a great shame that I have to continuously repeat things.

Relativity effects happen. Einstein's theory for predicting them is wrong. The AToR is the correct theory.
Hence the difference in the reading of two clocks (eg. HK) as I have described happens and is explained by the AToR, not Einstein's theory.

[Solar]

The problem is this. You all have pre-conceived ideas which you want to hang onto for your own personal reasons.

Oh the irony.

[Aardwolf]

Whatever journey clock A observes clock B to take, will be exactly the same (mirrored) as the journey that clock B observers clock A to take. They can only observe each other and have no other fixed reference point to use to determine anything else. So, exactly how do you determine which clock ran fast and which clock ran slow?

I have already explained this. One journey may be faster and hence longer than the other.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of geometry. If A travels away from B at 300,000 mph, under the very definition of relativity, B must be travelling away from
A at 300,000 mph. If A moves in any direction at any speed relative to B, B moves in the opposite direction relative to A at the same speed. Are you unable or unwilling to understand this?

[Aardwolf]

Insisting that the electromagnetic energy input ultimately increases the mass, and then converts that mass into energy is the religious belief you cant let go of considering there is no evidence to support this process, only theory.

I prefer to accept the evidence as it's presented. If that unfortunately falsifies your theory then you need to go back to the drawing board.

I have said it many times before. If you want to do away with the concept of mass in order to hang on to your beliefs then carry on.

Again, where did I state mass does not exist? I'm refuting your religious belief the "EXTRA" mass is magically created.

A belief that has absolutey no evidence to support it hence the reason even mainstream relativists have abandoned the idea.

[Aardwolf]

If you think I am mistaken regarding my posts please tell me and/or provide a link to the piece of equipment at CERN which directly measures the mass of the particles.

I have already explained that you cant measure mass directly. That doesn't mean that it does not exist.

Please provide a link/quote to where I state mass doesn't exist.

[Aardwolf]

I would like to remind you that physics is not about hanging onto pre-conceived ideas. It is about closely examining the evidence...

It's a shame you didn't examine the evidence regarding the Hafele-Keating sham, muon lifetime assumptions, actual GPS functionality and particle accelerator measurement limitations before embarking on your misguided theory.

[marengo]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of geometry. If A travels away from B at 300,000 mph, under the very definition of relativity, B must be travelling away from
A at 300,000 mph. If A moves in any direction at any speed relative to B, B moves in the opposite direction relative to A at the same speed. Are you unable or unwilling to understand this?

For Gods sake, man. I am putting an Aether theory in front of you. Can you not at least remember that.
The effect on the two clocks is a function of their Aether velocity. That will be different for each clock.