The Aether Theory of Relativity

[marengo]

Indeed. But with no understanding of the rest mass what possible use is an assumption that it increases in motion.

Theory built upon theory and yet at the end you decide you have facts. House of cards.

I have carefully shown that you must calculate mass from equations such as F = ma or E = mv^2/2.
By doing so in practical experiments such as the LHC you find that the mass increases with velocity. I take it that you think 1000 physicists at Cern are a house of cards. It seems everyone is wrong apart from you.

[marengo]

1) Should the satellite clocks have different clock adjustments considering;

NO
Read the paper on the theory and you will find out why.

[marengo]

First, we are told that the sub-Aether is a “fundamental reference frame”. Then, in the very next sentence, we are told that the sub-Aether is a “substance”. And searching the entire book will turn up nothing else. The only references to the sub-Aether, are those shown above; that’s all there is.

How can anyone possibly understand this theory? From one sentence to the next, it's total confusion.

You are referring to the properties of my Aether which are the postulates of the theory.
I have been through this point many times before ad nauseum.
You dont need to understand postulates. You either accept them or go away and make your own. And see if you can derive a better physics from them

[marengo]

No-one so far has made an attempt to understand Aether physics.
I have not had a single sensible question from anyone (perhaps excluding one from Michael V)
I have given evidence of relativistic mass increase of 15000 times in the LHC. Aardwolf still denies the obvious.
That is excellent evidence that relativistic effect occur. If one occurs then so must all three.
No-one believes in Special Relativity so you posters do not have a theory to explain these effects.

I offer you one and you dont want to understand it.

[Aardwolf]

Indeed. But with no understanding of the rest mass what possible use is an assumption that it increases in motion.

Theory built upon theory and yet at the end you decide you have facts. House of cards.

I have carefully shown that you must calculate mass from equations such as F = ma or E = mv^2/2.

I thought we have already ascertained that the start mass cannot be measured so exactly how can you have any confidence there's an increase. It's just theory and yours is as poor as the theories it is built upon.

By doing so in practical experiments such as the LHC you find that the mass increases with velocity.

I'll give you another opportunity to provide a link to the instrument that measures the increased mass.

I take it that you think 1000 physicists at Cern are a house of cards. It seems everyone is wrong apart from you.

Considering CERN is staffed by relativists are you not also disagreeing with them? Anyway, I am not disputing what they are measuring. It's energy.

[Aardwolf]

1) Should the satellite clocks have different clock adjustments considering;

NO
Read the paper on the theory and you will find out why.

Why waste my time when it predicts a contradiction.

Apparently clocks will run slow or fast depending on their velocities through the aether, yet the satellite clocks work fine by having the same common adjustment rate even though they are moving at different velocities through the aether.

If this cant be simply explained in a few sentences or a paragraph then I dont wish to waste my time deciphering a theory that produces the same contradictions and paradoxes that other useless relativity papers produce.

[Aardwolf]

I have given evidence of relativistic mass increase of 15000 times in the LHC.

Where?

[Solar]

I wish you guys would read my papers and book.
Of course the satellites are all moving at different Aether velocities. That's obvious isn't it?
Try simplifying the picture. Take two clocks approaching each other. Two different Aether velocities, Yes?
NOW they both read each other, across the separation distance, as reading SLOW. Two clocks cant both be slow relative to each other, can they? But that is Einstein's prediction.IT IS ALSO THE AToV PREDICTION.
How can this be? It is because of observation effects when the clocks move relative to each other
When the clocks are stationary in the HK test there is no observation effect. Now one is fast, the other is slow.
FOR GODS SAKE, READ THE PAPERS.

No harm meant here but; I am, quite frankly, stunned at the continued referencing of the HK “experiment” as somehow indicative of supporting anything when they were caught providing falsified data in order to support the theory of relativity. I’m sorry to say that – reliance on that effectively ends my tenure with what I’ve thus far read of AToR. Considering the circumstance; such continued reliance is… well, I don’t know what it is actually but a theory that relies on HK is not one that I wish to spend time on.

Also:

Velocity Effects upon the Clock Rates.The fundamental question of velocity is always: "Velocity with respect to what?" Ashby, in the opening paragraph of his abstract, states:

Important relativistic effects arise from relative motions of GPS satellites and users, ...

And Ashby also states, at the start of a section on time dilation:

First, clocks in relative motion suffer (relativistic) time dilation,...

But these statements are patently untrue of GPS. It may appear to be a subtle difference, but it is very important to note that the GPS satellites' clock rate and the receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one another. Instead, they are adjusted as a function of their velocity with respect to the chosen frame of reference—in this case the earth-centered, non- rotating, (quasi) inertial frame. – Relativity and GPS: Ronald R. Hatch

I invite the membership interested in cutting their way through “relativistic illogic” to analyze, really analyze, the five bullet points Mr. Hatch discusses in his lecture: "Instances of Relativistic Illogic"

To me, your treatise is not qualitatively unraveling the knot of ‘relativistic thinking’ very well. Neither do your on the fly explanations. But I'm just repeating myself. There are other theories that do so in sterling fashion and by comparison AToR simply doesn’t have a comprehensible qualitative foundation to bolster its “postulates” before asking someone to simply “believe” in them. That is why you are encountering so much push back. Relativism, relativist, and relativistic interpretive thinking simply isn’t trusted.

The HK “experiment” demonstrates why this is so but you are in denial of what occurred with it. It doesn’t matter how one gets to the same “predictions” as Einstein’s relativity. The subjectivity of Relativism has long been a corruption of the perfectly natural facet of perception to perceive by way of contrasting more than one thing or condition with others. That is all that ‘Relative’ means. What it has become in the hands of “scientist” attempting to ‘model’ perception is a theoretical construct constantly looking for some place to be imho.

[marengo]

No harm meant here but; I am, quite frankly, stunned at the continued referencing of the HK “experiment” as somehow indicative of supporting anything when they were caught providing falsified data in order to support the theory of relativity. I’m sorry to say that – reliance on that effectively ends my tenure with what I’ve thus far read of AToR. Considering the circumstance; such continued reliance is… well, I don’t know what it is actually but a theory that relies on HK is not one that I wish to spend time on.

I do not rely upon HK. I rely far more on the LHC position.

The HK “experiment” demonstrates why this is so but you are in denial of what occurred with it. It doesn’t matter how one gets to the same “predictions” as Einstein’s relativity. The subjectivity of Relativism has long been a corruption of the perfectly natural facet of perception to perceive by way of contrasting more than one thing or condition with others. That is all that ‘Relative’ means. What it has become in the hands of “scientist” attempting to ‘model’ perception is a theoretical construct constantly looking for some place to be imho.

Solar, you fundamentally misunderstand Relativity.
The word relativity is used as it was coined by Einstein and it is to an extent applicable.
The relativistic effects are actually effects of velocity. They emanate from the effects of velocity through the Aether. Electric potential transients move at velocity c through the Aether. Thus they move at a different velocity with respect to a matter body moving through the Aether. Thus the electric field is modified relative to a moving charge. Thus atoms are affected. Thus all matter is affected.
Thus the real affects of length contraction, time dilation and mass increase occur as functions of Aether velocity.

But as i have explained ad nauseum, we cannot observe these effects directly.
However we can observe them indirectly from any chosen IRF. But an observation effect is inherent.
The combined real and observation effect combines to make it appear that our chosen IRF is the Aether.
That is a strange result but true.

But no-one wishes to examine the detail of this explanation. Michael V started but could not recognise a right angle triangle or solve a quadratic equation. And he was the best of you posters.

I fully understand you wishing to withdraw from what you cant understand.

[marengo]

If this cant be simply explained in a few sentences or a paragraph then I dont wish to waste my time deciphering a theory that produces the same contradictions and paradoxes that other useless relativity papers produce.

My booklet has 32 pages of text. Is that too much for you?
You need to tackle the problem in two parts.
First get to the conclusion that length contraction. time dilation and mass increase are real effects occurring as a function of velocity through the Aether then;
Understand how these effects are observed from any theoretical IRF eg. the Earth.

[marengo]

I have said that, in order to understand the Aether Theory of Relativity, one needs to separate it into two parts.

The conclusion of the first part is that length contraction, time dilation and mass increase are real effects to matter bodies which are functions of their Aether velocity.

But it is necessary to realise that these effects cannot be observed in objects attached to Earth .
The reason is obvious. When every thing is length contracted equally (as on Earth) then how can we possibly detect it.
Similarly when all our clocks and time processes are equally time dilated how can we tell. This is why the Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) gives a null result.

BUT when a matter body moves at a different velocity relative to observers on Earth then it must necessarily be moving at a different Aether velocity too. Thus it will be length contracted, time dilated and mass increased to a different degree to an Earth fixed observer. Now we can detect the difference. It is the ratio of the two effects. But that leads on to the second part of the explanation of the theory.

[Aardwolf]

If this cant be simply explained in a few sentences or a paragraph then I dont wish to waste my time deciphering a theory that produces the same contradictions and paradoxes that other useless relativity papers produce.

My booklet has 32 pages of text. Is that too much for you?
You need to tackle the problem in two parts.
First get to the conclusion that length contraction. time dilation and mass increase are real effects occurring as a function of velocity through the Aether then;
Understand how these effects are observed from any theoretical IRF eg. the Earth.

The only relevant effect here is the time dilation. What possible effect can the mass or contraction have on the radio signal. So please explain why the satellites do not require independent adjustments relative to their independent velocity through the aether? Continued avoidance doesn't help your arguments.

Also please explain how a common adjustment works? It seems to me your thery should predict no adjustment at all. If not how does a common one work?

[Aardwolf]

If this cant be simply explained in a few sentences or a paragraph then I dont wish to waste my time deciphering a theory that produces the same contradictions and paradoxes that other useless relativity papers produce.

My booklet has 32 pages of text. Is that too much for you?
You need to tackle the problem in two parts.
First get to the conclusion that length contraction. time dilation and mass increase are real effects occurring as a function of velocity through the Aether then;
Understand how these effects are observed from any theoretical IRF eg. the Earth.

One other thing. The GPS system is essentially a larger scale experiment of the Hafele-Keating experiment. Both have clocks with different velocities through the aether so why is the commonly adjusted GPS consistent with your theory using commonly adjusted clock rates, yet HK also consistent with your theory although it has independent clock rates. How do both contradictory results fit in your theory?

[marengo]

The only relevant effect here is the time dilation. What possible effect can the mass or contraction have on the radio signal. So please explain why the satellites do not require independent adjustments relative to their independent velocity through the aether? Continued avoidance doesn't help your arguments.

Also please explain how a common adjustment works? It seems to me your thery should predict no adjustment at all. If not how does a common one work?

If we take Earth to be an IRF (which of course it is not. but that is a separate point) Then the satellites are all circling in that IRF at the same velocity. If you were to compare time over part orbits then they would differ, but not so over complete orbits.

The point is that relative velocity, ie the velocity through the observer's IRF, is independent of direction.
Some allowance must be made for the rotation of the surface based clock which is rotating on Earth's axis. In my previous answer I ignored this effect. Naughty!
Does that answer your questions?

What you should realise is that the velocity of a satellite through the Aether is constantly changing over an orbit. Thus the degree of time dilation is changing. But over a whole orbit the total effect is identical.

[viscount aero]

If we take Earth to be an IRF (which of course it is not. but that is a separate point) Then the satellites are all circling in that IRF at the same velocity. If you were to compare time over part orbits then they would differ, but not so over complete orbits.

Why?

The point is that relative velocity, ie the velocity through the observer's IRF, is independent of direction.

How? Velocity itself is defined as a speed in a specific direction. It gives rise to a relativity. Otherwise there wouldn't be any way to describe movement of objects relative to each other. This is part of "relativity" is true. You have to consider direction otherwise there isn't a velocity.

What you should realise is that the velocity of a satellite through the Aether is constantly changing over an orbit.

Yes that is the nature of a velocity regardless of the medium.

Thus the degree of time dilation is changing. But over a whole orbit the total effect is identical.

Identical to what?