The Aether Theory of Relativity

[Aardwolf]

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.

As far as a GPS receiver is concerned the IRF is a specific point on the Earth, not the Earth itself. So for the receiver the satellites are not at the same velocity. Rather than using a hypothetical whole Earth scenario, please explain how it works in the real world. Again I'll ask, why are no specific time dilation adjustments required for each satellite clock?

And what do complete orbits have to do with it? I thought the aether was a preferred frame so the moons motion around Earth is irrelevant. The clocks should only be affected by motion through the fixed aether.

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?

No. Your answers are all over the place. You say there is a fixed aether then refer to observer frames, thereby ignoring any fixed aether effects.

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.

But how does that relate to the real world? GPS receivers do not wait for the satellite to orbit the Earth and take average readings of the times, it just takes a few minutes from 6 or 7 moving in different velocities. How does the GPS receiver calculate accurately in those few minutes considering every satellite clock is adjusted by the same rate?

[marengo]

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 veloci

You fundamentally misunderstand relativity.
Relative velocity is not relative to an object but to a reference frame. That frame may be the Aether or a theoretical 'copy' of the Aether called an IRF.
The direction of velocity through the reference frame is totally unimportant. Any way, the direction cannot be ascertained.

Identical to what?

Identical to other orbits. Surely that was obvious.

[marengo]

As far as a GPS receiver is concerned the IRF is a specific point on the Earth, not the Earth itself. So for the receiver the satellites are not at the same velocity. Rather than using a hypothetical whole Earth scenario, please explain how it works in the real world. Again I'll ask, why are no specific time dilation adjustments required for each satellite clock?

And what do complete orbits have to do with it? I thought the aether was a preferred frame so the moons motion around Earth is irrelevant. The clocks should only be affected by motion through the fixed aether.

I am not an expert on GPS. I do not know how precisely how they make these adjustments. It is easier to understand if you assume that the control station is on a point sized Earth. Then one orbit is identical to another so long as they are at the same height and velocity.
The clocks are only affected by their motion through the Aether BUT the observation effects on their readings depends upon the direction of that observation relative to the observer's Aether velocity.

No. Your answers are all over the place. You say there is a fixed aether then refer to observer frames, thereby ignoring any fixed aether effects.

So, what is wrong with that? I can generate as many theoretical IRFs as I like. They are only tools to aid understanding. This is what I dont like about posters on this site. You are constantly trying to find ways to criticise (even when there is no reason) rather than ways to understand.

You are making a fundamental error in the way you are going about this. The correct approach is to first understand the fundamentals of the theory. Then you can apply them to specific situations.

[viscount aero]

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 veloci

You fundamentally misunderstand relativity.
Relative velocity is not relative to an object but to a reference frame. That frame may be the Aether or a theoretical 'copy' of the Aether called an IRF.
The direction of velocity through the reference frame is totally unimportant. Any way, the direction cannot be ascertained.

Ok but from my understanding a local reference frame implies "something" exists there at that location for comparison. If it implies, too, a purely abstract state of observation (a mathematical "point" or concept), with nothing necessarily there as a "thing" then pardon my misunderstanding.

In the case of the aether, the aether as a reference frame is a thing. In this case it appears absolute. Yet it has localities. If a planet is suspended in the aether then the planet is a local frame of reference relative to another object moving in space. This is the barest essence of relativity--objects moving relative to each other through space. Without a comparable other object then there cannot be a relativity.

Taking it further, in the case of Einstein's relativity, the ever-metioned "clocks" are each a local frame of reference and exist as "observers" to each other, each without absolute positions or absolute times. This is why the HK experiment appears to be all but erroneous as a test for Einsteinian relativity. Each clock cannot produce an absolute time as each exists in its own time subjective to the clock remote to it.

Therefore, relativity implies a subjective state, each to its own. Absoluteness is not part of a relativity. If "aether relativity", per your definition, implies absolute times, absolute positions, etc., then it is not a relativity. It is the opposite of that--an absoluteness. Let's say there is no "spacetime", no expansion of space, no big bang. There is only the infinite aether and it is fixed and absolute. Ok. I tend to agree more with that. But I cannot say that it is related to Einsteinian relativity. It is more a simple relativity where the local reference frames at any point are fixed and absolute states of observation. In that scenario (a steady state/infinity) there is relative motion, velocity, speed, direction, etc., but these phenomena are assuming positions that are fixed and absolute. In an absolute state there is no subjective "time", bizarre "relativistic effects", or a purely subjective experience of anything. Without subjective relativistic effects then life is all taking place within an absolute, steady, and fixed cosmos "backdrop".

Identical to what?

Identical to other orbits. Surely that was obvious.

Ok.

[marengo]

Ok but from my understanding a local reference frame implies "something" exists there at that location for comparison. If it implies, too, a purely abstract state of observation (a mathematical "point" or concept), with nothing necessarily there as a "thing" then pardon my misunderstanding.

It is postulated that the Aether and/or IRFs exist in the absence of any body.

In the case of the aether, the aether as a reference frame is a thing. In this case it appears absolute. Yet it has localities. If a planet is suspended in the aether then the planet is a local frame of reference relative to another object moving in space. This is the barest essence of relativity--objects moving relative to each other through space. Without a comparable other object then there cannot be a relativity.

You have not taken notice of my previous post to you. I will say it again. In Relativity velocity is relative to a reference frame, NOT to a second body.

Taking it further, in the case of Einstein's relativity, the ever-metioned "clocks" are each a local frame of reference and exist as "observers" to each other, each without absolute positions or absolute times. This is why the HK experiment appears to be all but erroneous as a test for Einsteinian relativity. Each clock cannot produce an absolute time as each exists in its own time subjective to the clock remote to it.

Length, time and mass are absolute with respect to the Aether but not with respect to any other frame. Just because your clock is time dilated wrt the Aether does not make it any less important to you. That clock is your reference to all others. Each observer's clock is, to him, the reference clock for the Universe.

Therefore, relativity implies a subjective state, each to its own. Absoluteness is not part of a relativity. If "aether relativity", per your definition, implies absolute times, absolute positions, etc., then it is not a relativity. It is the opposite of that--an absoluteness. Let's say there is no "spacetime", no expansion of space, no big bang. There is only the infinite aether and it is fixed and absolute. Ok. I tend to agree more with that. But I cannot say that it is related to Einsteinian relativity. It is more a simple relativity where the local reference frames at any point are fixed and absolute states of observation. In that scenario (a steady state/infinity) there is relative motion, velocity, speed, direction, etc., but these phenomena are assuming positions that are fixed and absolute. In an absolute state there is no subjective "time", bizarre "relativistic effects", or a purely subjective experience of anything. Without subjective relativistic effects then life is all taking place within an absolute, steady, and fixed cosmos "backdrop".

I cant interpret what you say here. Take the two clock scenario i describe. The difference between the two clocks is not subjective. But if you were observing a clock in a passing space-ship it would be subjective because of the observation effect. Your clock and the space ship clock are both time dilated according to their own Aether velocities. But your observation effect modifies what you see.

I strongly recommend that you get down to basics and read the booklet.

[Sparky]

mar.: You are constantly trying to find ways to criticise (even when there is no reason) rather than ways to understand.

Scientific method demands criticism. Reasons vary from logical, scientific questioning to unreasonable ones due to dislike of presenter. One has to accept that a questioner is attempting to "understand".

I have adopted an aether hypothesis which is good enough for me. The person who explained it to me was patient, exact, and clear with his wording. It did not require reading a great deal nor learning math. If a person understands a subject, they can explain it on many levels, depending on the student's ability.

[Aardwolf]

As far as a GPS receiver is concerned the IRF is a specific point on the Earth, not the Earth itself. So for the receiver the satellites are not at the same velocity. Rather than using a hypothetical whole Earth scenario, please explain how it works in the real world. Again I'll ask, why are no specific time dilation adjustments required for each satellite clock?

And what do complete orbits have to do with it? I thought the aether was a preferred frame so the moons motion around Earth is irrelevant. The clocks should only be affected by motion through the fixed aether.

I am not an expert on GPS. I do not know how precisely how they make these adjustments.

Maybe you should research it and you will find out they dont make any independent clock adjustments.

It is easier to understand if you assume that the control station is on a point sized Earth. Then one orbit is identical to another so long as they are at the same height and velocity.

We dont need to make any assumptions. We have an ongoing working experiment to refer to. The GPS receiver does not need to assume its a point in the centre of the Earth so why should we. Now you know no independent clock adjustments are made how does your theory explain GPS receivers working when the source clocks are moving at different velocities through the aether relative to the receiver on the surface?

The clocks are only affected by their motion through the Aether BUT the observation effects on their readings depends upon the direction of that observation relative to the observer's Aether velocity.

So all the elements in the system are moving at different velocities therefore the GPS receiver should need to adjust for these effects but does nothing so how do you explain they work?

No. Your answers are all over the place. You say there is a fixed aether then refer to observer frames, thereby ignoring any fixed aether effects.

So, what is wrong with that? I can generate as many theoretical IRFs as I like. They are only tools to aid understanding. This is what I dont like about posters on this site. You are constantly trying to find ways to criticise (even when there is no reason) rather than ways to understand.

If as you say the aether is fixed then any motion relative to the fixed aether causes relativistic effects so how can you invoke different inertial reference frames and state there are no relativity effects within it.

For example we have 3 clocks A,B & C positioned as below and lets say are all stationary relative to the aether (aether represented by dots);
A..........B..........C
If A & C move toward B your theory should state that when they arrive at B both A&C will have slowed by the same amount and B will be faster (compared to A&C);
..........ABC..........

Now lets say the another 3 clocks X,Y & Z are positioned the same way but are instead all moving in a straight line towards the right through the aether;
X..........Y..........Z
In this case when X&Z move toward Y, Z has actually slowed relative to the aether so its clock should speed up faster than Y.
.....................................XYZ

The second scenario is the system that GPS works in but that would require any observers (receivers) to adjust for all the differennt velocities of the clocks which it just doesn't do. You invoke an IRF to explain why but this can only work if the IRF is stationary relative to the aether. This is not the case.

As you can't explain this we can only assume your theory is falsified. There are no real world time dilation effects.

You are making a fundamental error in the way you are going about this. The correct approach is to first understand the fundamentals of the theory. Then you can apply them to specific situations.

Well you know the fundamentals so apply them to GPS. Apparently you can't because your theory is just as flawed as other relativity theories. Instead of explaing how it works in a real system you need to invoke unfalsifiable assumptions and even then they make no sense.

[viscount aero]

Ok but from my understanding a local reference frame implies "something" exists there at that location for comparison. If it implies, too, a purely abstract state of observation (a mathematical "point" or concept), with nothing necessarily there as a "thing" then pardon my misunderstanding.

It is postulated that the Aether and/or IRFs exist in the absence of any body.

If there is no body then how can anything be relative to anything? Something must exist in order for a relativity to be set up. What am I not understanding?

In the case of the aether, the aether as a reference frame is a thing. In this case it appears absolute. Yet it has localities. If a planet is suspended in the aether then the planet is a local frame of reference relative to another object moving in space. This is the barest essence of relativity--objects moving relative to each other through space. Without a comparable other object then there cannot be a relativity.

You have not taken notice of my previous post to you. I will say it again. In Relativity velocity is relative to a reference frame, NOT to a second body.

Ok I understand the idea of local inertial reference frames (which are places where observers reside). LIF can be replaced with "observer" and it will have the same meaning. An "observer" must require something be there--to do the observing. For example if only one object existed in the cosmos it would not have any movement or velocity. It needs something else to give it movement (unless you are saying the aether itself is that "thing"). An LIF without a "thing" doing the observing is an abstract/non-real concept. What am I not understanding?

Taking it further, in the case of Einstein's relativity, the ever-metioned "clocks" are each a local frame of reference and exist as "observers" to each other, each without absolute positions or absolute times. This is why the HK experiment appears to be all but erroneous as a test for Einsteinian relativity. Each clock cannot produce an absolute time as each exists in its own time subjective to the clock remote to it.

Length, time and mass are absolute with respect to the Aether but not with respect to any other frame.

Ok. Your aether is the absolute backdrop to all of existence. I think I am understanding that part. This doesn't differ from any other aether theory that I am aware of. To add, the mainstream has attempted to foist the "Higgs field" upon society which is nothing but their version of a particle-based/fantasy-based aether concept.

Just because your clock is time dilated wrt the Aether does not make it any less important to you. That clock is your reference to all others. Each observer's clock is, to him, the reference clock for the Universe.

I don't really understand your wording in the above paragraph: "Just because your clock is time dilated wrt the Aether does not make it any less important to you. That clock is your reference to all others. Each observer's clock is, to him, the reference clock for the Universe"--appears no different than Einsteinian relativity. To an observer in an LIF of course their clock is "time dilated" relative to all others as this is the basis of Einsteinan relativity. So if each observer's clock is their own reference to the Universe this implies that each observer's time is subjective to them. This is the same thing as in Einsteinan relativity. How does your clock experiment differ if each LIF is subjective and time is subjective?

If you accept the aether as the absolute foundation of the cosmos--the "everything" material (like the Higgs field)--and then you accept time dilation, length contraction, etc, then you are merely restating Einstein in large measure as far as I can see. I don't see how your theory differs from his except that you have reintroduced the aether which is an old idea that Einstein initially believed in.

Therefore, relativity implies a subjective state, each to its own. Absoluteness is not part of a relativity. If "aether relativity", per your definition, implies absolute times, absolute positions, etc., then it is not a relativity. It is the opposite of that--an absoluteness. Let's say there is no "spacetime", no expansion of space, no big bang. There is only the infinite aether and it is fixed and absolute. Ok. I tend to agree more with that. But I cannot say that it is related to Einsteinian relativity. It is more a simple relativity where the local reference frames at any point are fixed and absolute states of observation. In that scenario (a steady state/infinity) there is relative motion, velocity, speed, direction, etc., but these phenomena are assuming positions that are fixed and absolute. In an absolute state there is no subjective "time", bizarre "relativistic effects", or a purely subjective experience of anything. Without subjective relativistic effects then life is all taking place within an absolute, steady, and fixed cosmos "backdrop".

I cant interpret what you say here. Take the two clock scenario i describe. The difference between the two clocks is not subjective.

They're not? You seem to be floating from one idea to the next without noticing it. You said above that each observer's clock is their reference clock to the universe. This implies subjectivity. An LIF has its own time and velocity.

But if you were observing a clock in a passing space-ship it would be subjective because of the observation effect.

How are we now back on subjectivity when you just said that the difference between the two clocks is not subjective?

Your clock and the space ship clock are both time dilated according to their own Aether velocities. But your observation effect modifies what you see.

What?

"Your clock and the space ship clock are both time dilated according to their own Aether velocities"--implies subjectivity right out of Einsteinian relativity.

Then you leap to this bizarrely and vaguely stated idea: "But your observation effect modifies what you see."

What are you saying? Why do you speak in vagueness and bizarre/off-the-cuff "inside" phraseology? How does my "observation effect modify what I see" ?? In Einsteinian relativity each LIF is already subjective to the observer. Are you restating this idea but vaguely?

I strongly recommend that you get down to basics and read the booklet.

I have read some of your booklet and much of it is written exactly as you speak here: vague, rambling, leaps of logic without anything in between to arrive there. In my opinion, your difficult explanatory ramblings that leap from conclusion to conclusion with vague indications of how and why you have gotten there is why very few people thus far have been able to comprehend even the smallest part of your idea.

[marengo]

mar.: You are constantly trying to find ways to criticise (even when there is no reason) rather than ways to understand.

Scientific method demands criticism. Reasons vary from logical, scientific questioning to unreasonable ones due to dislike of presenter. One has to accept that a questioner is attempting to "understand".

You cannot criticise until you first understand.

[marengo]

If there is no body then how can anything be relative to anything? Something must exist in order for a relativity to be set up. What am I not understanding?

The velocity of each body is relative to the Aether through which it moves.
Now you can construct a theoretical 'copy' of the Aether called an IRF in which a chosen body (the observer) is stationary. Other bodies then move through and relative to this IRF ( as well as through the Aether, of course). They do not necessarily move relative to the observer.

Let me also say this. A purely theoretical IRF (moving at unknown velocity wrt the Aether) acts, from the point of view of an observer stationary within it, just as though that IRF was the Aether. It isnt, but the observer cannot tell the difference. It takes a lot to prove that but it is all in my papers and book.

Let me give you an example. Take two bodies A and B. A moves through the Aether at 1000km/s while B moves through at 1100km/s. The will be length contracted, time dilated and mass increased according to those two velocities.
Now construct an IRF in which A is stationary. B moves through that IRF at the difference of 100km/s.
Thus A observes B to be length contracted, time dilated and mass increased according to the relative velocity of 100km/s. And yet it is really length contracted, time dilated etc according to its Aether velocity of 1100km/s.
This seems strange but it is true.

[marengo]

viscoun aero. I cannot fully reply to your post at present as my computer has decided to run very slow.
In my two clock experiment the clocks finish up stationary side by side. Thus there is no observation effect and their reading are not subjective. This is not true of the passing space-ship.

Always remember that my theory differs from Einstein's in that it applies to accelerating bodies. Einstein's theory does not.

[marengo]

viscount aero
In my previous post I should also have said that if B is the observer then he will see A moving at 100km/s through his IRF. Thus he will see identical relativistic effects on B as A sees of him.

Now this may all be very confusing.
The bit you dont see as yet is the observation effect. To interrogate a moving body one must do so by emitting a light pulse and 'reflecting' it off the moving body to return with the information required.
In fact one has to do this twice, at the beginning and end of a measured time period.

The problem is that as the observer is moving through the Aether the speed of light is different between the out and the return journey. This unknown difference is the observation effect.

So what you see is a combination of real and observation effects. The observation effect can be bigger than the real effect. One may be positive, the other negative.

[viscount aero]

viscount aero
In my previous post I should also have said that if B is the observer then he will see A moving at 100km/s through his IRF. Thus he will see identical relativistic effects on B as A sees of him.

Now this may all be very confusing.
The bit you dont see as yet is the observation effect. To interrogate a moving body one must do so by emitting a light pulse and 'reflecting' it off the moving body to return with the information required.
In fact one has to do this twice, at the beginning and end of a measured time period.

The problem is that as the observer is moving through the Aether the speed of light is different between the out and the return journey. This unknown difference is the observation effect.

So what you see is a combination of real and observation effects. The observation effect can be bigger than the real effect. One may be positive, the other negative.

Ok I am actually just now beginning to sort of understand what you mean--at least one part of it.

I will have to revisit this post again to fully understand it. Or you can further clarify it after my post here.

What I think you're saying is that "classical" Einsteinian relativity does not take into account the "send and return" aspect of the light. You call this send/return of the light the "observation effect." Am I correct in my conclusion or not?

I admit I have never heard of that aspect nor considered it. It is quite interesting and intuitive. I will have to sit with that idea to see if I can visualize it so I can fully comprehend its importance and effects upon the situation. But it is something I have not yet heard discussed in Relativity debates.

It may help, if you have not already done so, to create a GLOSSARY OF TERMS that helps the reader of your theory understand what your language and terms mean. As of now I have had to pull teeth out of you to get you to define what your language means. Relativity is confusing enough. When new ideas and terms are added, and then not clearly defined, it potentially makes a new theory seem unreadable. A Glossary will help you immensely to this end. A Glossary of Terms will also help to dispel confusion and hostility to your theory by those, like me, who have found it heretofore entirely unfollowable.

[marengo]

What I think you're saying is that "classical" Einsteinian relativity does not take into account the "send and return" aspect of the light. You call this send/return of the light the "observation effect." Am I correct in my conclusion or not?

I admit I have never heard of that aspect nor considered it. It is quite interesting and intuitive. I will have to sit with that idea to see if I can visualize it so I can fully comprehend its importance and effects upon the situation. But it is something I have not yet heard discussed in Relativity debates.

It may help, if you have not already done so, to create a GLOSSARY OF TERMS that helps the reader of your theory understand what your language and terms mean. As of now I have had to pull teeth out of you to get you to define what your language means. Relativity is confusing enough. When new ideas and terms are added, and then not clearly defined, it potentially makes a new theory seem unreadable. A Glossary will help you immensely to this end. A Glossary of Terms will also help to dispel confusion and hostility to your theory by those, like me, who have found it heretofore entirely unfollowable.

Special Relativity does not have an observation effect simply because it states that the speed of light is identical in all IRFs. Thus the speed of light is the same for the outward journey of the interrogation pulse as for its return.
The real effect plus observation effect comes from postulating an Aether.

I have told you about the fact that there is a real part and an observation part so that you may envisage what is happening BUT in practice you dont need to worry about it. The Lorentz Transform equation for the conversion of velocity from one frame to another solves the problem.
Take two bodies A and B moving through the Aether. The relativity factor (Lorentz) for each may be expressed as G_A and G_B, whre G stands for gamma which is 1/(1 - v^2/c^2).
If A measures the length , time or mass of B it does so against its own standards of length, time and mass. The measure that it gets is G_B/G_A.
Now the Lorentz equation transforms that ratio to G_R(K) where G_R is the relativity factor for the RELATIVE velocity between A and B. K normally equals 1.
Thus what you observe in the Aether theory is identical to what Einstein predicts (except for the factor K)
The factor K is not unity for an accelerating observer. And ALL observers accelerate. Hence the Aether theory deals with real bodies where-as Einstein's theory does not.

That is probably a lot to swallow so I will now stop.

[marengo]

Viscount aero
As regards to a glossary of terms I personally think what is need is a mental picture.

First one needs to picture that Space is a sold substance. That is difficult enough.
Then one needs to realist that matter is constructed of pressure transients within the Aether.
Then the complex pressure transients of matter move through the Aether limited to just below the speed of light.
Next you need to realise that matter and its associated fields are modified by its Aether velocity.

Does that seem to be a reasonable start?