The Aether Theory of Relativity

[marengo]

To my knowledge it has taken you 22 pages to define the sub-aether even though you have been asked to define it for several pages. Why?

I think that ,if you care to look back, I have always said this.

[viscount aero]

in·er·tia (i-nûrsh a)
n.
1. Physics The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
2. Resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change: the inertia of an entrenched bureaucracy.

Therefore, how do you figure everything in existence is under constant acceleration? Constant acceleration requires a constant application of force (versus something that is just coasting through space with no force acting upon it). Is this because you believe in the constant acceleration of spacetime?

Inertia and inertial are two different words with two different meanings. My definition of inertial is correct.
A body moving through outer Space will still be affected by the gravitational pull of nearby galaxies.
But the important point that you miss is that nothing on Earth is inertial and that is where theories are applied.

Inertia is a noun. Inertial is the adjective form of the noun. They refer to the same thing.

Therefore it is incorrect to claim that "The definition of the word 'inertial' is defined by physics in general. It simply means 'having zero-acceleration'. It has nothing to do with velocity or movement".

Inertia and something that is inertial has everything to do with movement. All bodies possess a state of inertia and are thus inertial.

If nothing on Earth were inertial then nothing would possess a state of rest or motion whatsoever. But looking around you can see some things, if not most, are sitting around doing nothing while other things are moving, like cars and flying birds. They all have a state of inertia.

Also, if inertial implies "zero acceleration" then this means that the object can either be at rest or coasting, ie, sitting or moving. So that, too, describes a state of motion although more vaguely.

So again if nothing on Earth is inertial then nothing around you possesses a state of rest or motion. How do you reconcile this?

[kevin]

Then within that solid is a force( I reckon You term this Your sub aether?)

Totally wrong I am afraid.
The sub-Aether is merely the fundamental reference frame of the Universe.

"Totally wrong"
Correct.
It is totally wrong for anyone to dare to offer an alternate.
Kevin

[marengo]

Inertia is a noun. Inertial is the adjective form of the noun. They refer to the same thing.

Therefore it is incorrect to claim that "The definition of the word 'inertial' is defined by physics in general. It simply means 'having zero-acceleration'. It has nothing to do with velocity or movement".

Inertia and something that is inertial has everything to do with movement. All bodies possess a state of inertia and are thus inertial.

You can say that 'inertial' ought to mean something different as much as you like but you wont change the way that Physics employs the word.

If nothing on Earth were inertial then nothing would possess a state of rest or motion whatsoever. But looking around you can see some things, if not most, are sitting around doing nothing while other things are moving, like cars and flying birds. They all have a state of inertia.

Also, if inertial implies "zero acceleration" then this means that the object can either be at rest or coasting, ie, sitting or moving. So that, too, describes a state of motion although more vaguely.

So again if nothing on Earth is inertial then nothing around you possesses a state of rest or motion. How do you reconcile this?

My reference to the Earth and everything on it being non-inertial is using the physics definition of the word inertial. After-all we are discussing physics here aren't we?
let me repeat. Inertial is the state of zero acceleration. A body may have high velocity but is simultaneously inertial.
Remember, the Earth is constantly accelerating towards the Sun.

[marengo]

Sparky, As ever your posts say rather a lot about you.

[marengo]

"Totally wrong"
Correct.
It is totally wrong for anyone to dare to offer an alternate.
Kevin

Not at all. But you were just plain wrong. If you want me to say that something wrong is right then I will say it if it pleases you.
Kevin, you were quite correct.

[viscount aero]

Inertia is a noun. Inertial is the adjective form of the noun. They refer to the same thing.

Therefore it is incorrect to claim that "The definition of the word 'inertial' is defined by physics in general. It simply means 'having zero-acceleration'. It has nothing to do with velocity or movement".

Inertia and something that is inertial has everything to do with movement. All bodies possess a state of inertia and are thus inertial.

You can say that 'inertial' ought to mean something different as much as you like but you wont change the way that Physics employs the word.

If nothing on Earth were inertial then nothing would possess a state of rest or motion whatsoever. But looking around you can see some things, if not most, are sitting around doing nothing while other things are moving, like cars and flying birds. They all have a state of inertia.

Also, if inertial implies "zero acceleration" then this means that the object can either be at rest or coasting, ie, sitting or moving. So that, too, describes a state of motion although more vaguely.

So again if nothing on Earth is inertial then nothing around you possesses a state of rest or motion. How do you reconcile this?

My reference to the Earth and everything on it being non-inertial is using the physics definition of the word inertial. After-all we are discussing physics here aren't we?
let me repeat. Inertial is the state of zero acceleration. A body may have high velocity but is simultaneously inertial.
Remember, the Earth is constantly accelerating towards the Sun.

Inertia is a noun. Inertial is the adjective of that noun. They are the same thing.

Inertia is a body's present state of motion, at rest or coasting--as I said earlier. Unless it is acted upon by a force then it retains its state of inertia. This is a fact of science.

If something is not acted upon by a force (an acceleration) then it retains its state of inertia.

Where you depart company with me is that you suggest that there is no such thing as inertia, that bodies are non-inertial entities, and that all bodies are being acted upon by gravity and thus accelerated.

Is this correct?

[Michael V]

viscount aero,

Inertia is all about a resistance to acceleration - a resistance to a change of velocity vector. Thus a body does not exhibit "inertia" until a force is applied.

If nothing on Earth were inertial then nothing would possess a state of rest or motion whatsoever. But looking around you can see some things, if not most, are sitting around doing nothing while other things are moving, like cars and flying birds. They all have a state of inertia.

The Earth is "rotating" in at least three different planes: axial, around the Sun and around the galaxy. That is to say, against the backdrop of the rest of the (infinite) universe, the Earth and everything on it, is continuously changing direction - a continuous change of direction is defined as acceleration, just as is a change of scalar velocity or "speed". A flying bird may appear to be moving more than a rock or a whole mountain come to that, but all, due to their location on the Earth, are in a state of acceleration: "continuously changing direction". The bird and the mountain have a galactic rotation equivalent to a tangential velocity of about 250km/s (over 500,000mph). In this, less narrow, context, exactly how fast and in what direction the bird is travelling whilst a rock is "sitting around doing nothing" is somewhat trivial. There is no electron, proton or neutron in the entire infinite universe that is "still" or "sitting around doing nothing" or "in a state of uniform velocity". Perhaps you could describe orbital motion as a "coasting", but orbit is an acceleration. Even though a circular orbit may represent a constant velocity, it is actually an angular velocity, so not a "uniform" velocity.

All that said, I don't see that marengo's claim to include effects upon accelerating bodies is any more valid than Einstein's. Perhaps he would be kind enough to explain the difference in a detailed and easy to understand manner.


Michael

[viscount aero]

I'll post the definition again

in·er·tia (i-nûrsh a)
n.
1. Physics The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
2. Resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change: the inertia of an entrenched bureaucracy.

[viscount aero]

viscount aero,

Inertia is all about a resistance to acceleration - a resistance to a change of velocity vector. Thus a body does not exhibit "inertia" until a force is applied.

If nothing on Earth were inertial then nothing would possess a state of rest or motion whatsoever. But looking around you can see some things, if not most, are sitting around doing nothing while other things are moving, like cars and flying birds. They all have a state of inertia.

The Earth is "rotating" in at least three different planes: axial, around the Sun and around the galaxy. That is to say, against the backdrop of the rest of the (infinite) universe, the Earth and everything on it, is continuously changing direction - a continuous change of direction is defined as acceleration, just as is a change of scalar velocity or "speed". A flying bird may appear to be moving more than a rock or a whole mountain come to that, but all, due to their location on the Earth, are in a state of acceleration: "continuously changing direction". The bird and the mountain have a galactic rotation equivalent to a tangential velocity of about 250km/s (over 500,000mph). In this, less narrow, context, exactly how fast and in what direction the bird is travelling whilst a rock is "sitting around doing nothing" is somewhat trivial. There is no electron, proton or neutron in the entire infinite universe that is "still" or "sitting around doing nothing" or "in a state of uniform velocity". Perhaps you could describe orbital motion as a "coasting", but orbit is an acceleration. Even though a circular orbit may represent a constant velocity, it is actually an angular velocity, so not a "uniform" velocity.

I realize that everything is moving relative to something, ie, the Earth is moving through the galaxy as well as around the Sun, etc... ad infinitum. A mountain range is actually moving and accelerating even if it appears to be sitting still forever, etc... Movement is perpetual and the directions are actually never in straight lines. Therefore nothing is "inert." Nothing actually possesses absolute stillness. Therefore the concept of "inertia" is only that, and it is only an idea which actually doesn't happen.

That said, what about things that are subjectively appearing to just sit there, like a parked car? And what about things that, once set into motion, are left to drift and coast, like a boat through water or a car whose engine is turned off and left to coast down a hill? There must be a physics to take that into account, a practical "here and now" physics, ie, inertia. This is where Einstein enters the picture.

All that said, I don't see that marengo's claim to include effects upon accelerating bodies is any more valid than Einstein's. Perhaps he would be kind enough to explain the difference in a detailed and easy to understand manner.

Marengo claims that all things are non-inertial. Marengo claims that Einstein disagrees and declares things to possess inertia. Einstein is concerned with local inertial reference frames. Marengo disagrees and says that nothing is inertial so LIFs in the Einsteinian sense cannot actually exist. This implies that all things are being constantly accelerated as you have described above. You are in agreement with Marengo apparently. And now I am agreeing with Marengo because I agree with what you said above. So which is true? Are subjective/perceptual effects true? Or are there "actually" no justifications to take subjective experiences into account in physics? Einstein says subjective realities are true and that everything possesses its own unique time and movement. Marengo disagrees. We're beginning to unravel Marengo's thinking--finally

[kevin]

"Totally wrong"
Correct.
It is totally wrong for anyone to dare to offer an alternate.
Kevin

Not at all. But you were just plain wrong. If you want me to say that something wrong is right then I will say it if it pleases you.
Kevin, you were quite correct.

I find that insulting.
Perhaps, just perhaps, YOU are not correct??
Kevin

[marengo]

All that said, I don't see that marengo's claim to include effects upon accelerating bodies is any more valid than Einstein's. Perhaps he would be kind enough to explain the difference in a detailed and easy to understand manner.

I have already explained this in a detailed and easy to understand manner. Furthermore, the explanation is given clearly both in my papers and in my booklet.
But simply put, the AToR applies to real non-inertial bodies where-as Einstein's theory applies only to theoretical inertial bodies. I suggest you read my papers for the explanation of that statement.

[marengo]

Marengo claims that all things are non-inertial. Marengo claims that Einstein disagrees and declares things to possess inertia. Einstein is concerned with local inertial reference frames. Marengo disagrees and says that nothing is inertial so LIFs in the Einsteinian sense cannot actually exist. This implies that all things are being constantly accelerated as you have described above. You are in agreement with Marengo apparently. And now I am agreeing with Marengo because I agree with what you said above. So which is true? Are subjective/perceptual effects true? Or are there "actually" no justifications to take subjective experiences into account in physics? Einstein says subjective realities are true and that everything possesses its own unique time and movement. Marengo disagrees. We're beginning to unravel Marengo's thinking--finally

I will correct the above.
You are once again mixing up inertia and inertial. Einsteins theory relies upon bodies being inertial ( all bodies possess inertia).
I have said many, many times that relativity has a real and an observational component. The observational component is a function of the observers Aether velocity when observing a body travelling at relative velocity. Hence it does not occur in the two clock experiment. If you read my papers until you understand them all will come clear. That would have saved a lot of time.

[marengo]

I find that insulting.
Perhaps, just perhaps, YOU are not correct??
Kevin

You are at liberty to point out my errors.

[viscount aero]

Marengo claims that all things are non-inertial. Marengo claims that Einstein disagrees and declares things to possess inertia. Einstein is concerned with local inertial reference frames. Marengo disagrees and says that nothing is inertial so LIFs in the Einsteinian sense cannot actually exist. This implies that all things are being constantly accelerated as you have described above. You are in agreement with Marengo apparently. And now I am agreeing with Marengo because I agree with what you said above. So which is true? Are subjective/perceptual effects true? Or are there "actually" no justifications to take subjective experiences into account in physics? Einstein says subjective realities are true and that everything possesses its own unique time and movement. Marengo disagrees. We're beginning to unravel Marengo's thinking--finally

I will correct the above.
You are once again mixing up inertia and inertial. Einsteins theory relies upon bodies being inertial ( all bodies possess inertia).
I have said many, many times that relativity has a real and an observational component. The observational component is a function of the observers Aether velocity when observing a body travelling at relative velocity. Hence it does not occur in the two clock experiment. If you read my papers until you understand them all will come clear. That would have saved a lot of time.

I'd rather you address my points exactly that are in error. Instead you answered with a reply that is confusing. I don't know what you mean at all. Not really. If nothing is inertial then there can't be LIFs. Yes or no? Why don't you ever answer something directly?