How is c the speed limit???

[crawler]

How should we measure speeds?? What kind of speedometer should we use??
I will try to ignore Einsteinian (phony) theory. I want to look at Aetheric (real) ideas.

SPEEDOMETERS. MMX interferometers can tell us Earth's velocity, ie the velocity of the aetherwind blowing throo the interferometer. Bolometers etc can tell us velocity relative to the CMB. Spectral shift Doppler can tell us the relative velocities of stars. Distances & changing angles can tell us about star orbits. Radar ranging can tell us solar system velocities & short range velocities. I might come back to these later – but today i want to look at basic rod & clock speedometer gedankens.

ADAM 300 300 300. An observer (Adam) who is stationary in the absolute aetheric reference frame (which is another way of saying that the aetherwind is zero km/s) lays out a stationary rod with a synchronised atomic clock at each end to measure (calculate) the speeds of 3 rockets.
And Adam has an assistant. Each rocket carries 1 observer, Angela, Anna & Anita (plus an assistant), & Adam finds that all 3 have the same measured speed, say 300 km/s.

SPEED LIMIT OF c. Adam's rod & clocks speedometer will work ok for all speeds including speeds equal to c & greater than c (not important). However we all know that aether theory says that rockets can't attain a speed of c or greater than c relative to the aether because (1) the electric & magnetic push forces accelerating rockets are (they say) limited to a speed of c relative to the aether, & (2) because rockets must change size & shape as the aetherwind blowing them increases (& this change approaches a limit as the aetherwind approaches c)(the limit exists because the electric & magnetic forces holding rockets together act at no more than c in the aether)(ie crudely put something would have to break for a rocket to attain c). Anyhow, Adam's stationary rod & clocks are capable of measuring superluminal speeds (if such speeds are possible)(not important today).

0.0000 / 0.2929 / 0.7071 / 1.000. Most relativity theories say that lengths contract to 0.0000 as speeds approach c, but i reckon that gammas approach say 0.7071 (instead of the Lorentzian 1.000), ie that lengths approach 0.2929 (instead of the Lorentzian 0.0000)(not very important today).

ANGELA 300. What does Angela measure?? Angela uses the stationary rod & clocks that Adam laid out (by say looking throo a window in her rocket), hence Angela's measure of her speed will be the same as Adam's, ie 300 km/s.

ANNA 301. What does Anna measure?? Anna uses Adam's stationary rod, but she uses an on-board clock (identical to Adam's). We can assume that her clock ticks slower than Adam's clocks because her clock has an aetherwind of 300 km/s blowing throo it. Hence Anna would measure a greater speed than Adam, eg say 301 km/s.

ANITA 302. What does Anita measure?? Anita uses an on-board rod & 2 on-board clocks. We can assume that her rod is shorter than Adam's because her rod has an aetherwind of 300 km/s blowing along it, (& assuming that her clocks tick slower than Adam's)(they tick the same as Anna's) then Anita would measure a greater speed than Anna, eg say 302 km/s. One way that Anita could use her own on-board rod is if she timed when the front of her rod was level with a roadsign & then when the rear was level with the sign.

LENGTH GAMMAS. I reckon that the true gammas for length contraction due to aetherwind are very complicated & vary for different kinds of objects, ie i reckon that the exact atomic & molecular composition of an object affects length contraction. I reckon that the intra & inter electric & magnetic forces forming individual electrons atoms & molecules & holding them together act in different ways, & are affected in different ways by changes in the aetherwind.
TICKING GAMMAS. And i reckon that the true gammas for ticking dilations due to aetherwind are very complicated & vary for different kinds of clocks & processes. I reckon that ticking gammas for conventional clocks depend mainly on length contraction of the clock (including width contraction & thickness contraction). In other words i reckon that ticking gammas depend on length gammas.
ATOMIC CLOCKS. However i reckon that atomic clocks can be different to conventional clocks, because atomic clocks can suffer an intrinsic ticking dilation due to the effect of aetherwind on electron orbits. Here length contraction can be blamed but in a different way. NEGATION. Ticking gammas in atomic clocks might nearly equal length gammas in some kinds of objects, in which case these 2 relativistic effects might negate almost exactly in some experiments etc (i will explain this later).

GAMMAS RELATING TO VELOCITY. All of the length & ticking gammas that i have mentioned up to now relate to the speed or velocity of the rocket or observer (ie the speed or velocity of the aetherwind actually).
NEARNESS OF MASS. However all gammas should include an additional allowance relating to the effect of the nearness of mass (as predicted by Einstein)(but not for the reasons given by him)(& Einstein's equations might not be good), but i have ignored this up to now. Einstein's calculation of the effect of the nearness of mass was clever, he equated it to the escape velocity, & he simply inserted that escape velocity in the usual equation for gamma. But his escape velocity was of a nett kind, whereas i reckon that it needs to be of a gross kind (which i might explain later).

[Cargo]

Sesame Street Time: C stands for Circular
It's only a limit to itself.
The Speed of Sound will never be broken.
And I can't drive 55.

[crawler]

Today i continue the theme that measuring speed aint simple in our aetheric world.

BART 302 302 302. Bart Barb Betty & Bonnie repeat Adam's 3 rocket experiments, but this time Bart is not stationary in the absolute aetheric reference frame, he has a 300 km/s aetherwind blowing along his rod. Hence his rod is shorter than Adam's, & his clocks tick slower than Adam's. Let us assume that the rocket achieves a speed of 300 km/s relative to Bart if measured with a true (non-shortened) rod & a true (non-slowed) clock. In that case we can say that when using his shortened rod & slow clock Bart measures that Barb's Betty's & Bonnie's speeds are say 302 km/s. Barb (using Bart's rod & clocks) too measures 302 km/s. Betty (who uses Bart's rod)(but has an on-board clock which has an aetherwind of 600 km/s blowing throo it & it therefore ticks slower than Bart's clock) measures say 303 km/s. Bonnie (who has her own on-board rod which has an aetherwind of 600 km/s blowing along it & it is therefore shorter than Bart's rod)(& Bonnie has 2 on-board clocks) measures say 304 km/s. But here above we made a mistake, keep reading.

MISTAKE. What was our mistake?? I said that a 300 km/s aetherwind blows along Bart's rod, but i didn’t say which direction along. And then i assumed that the rocket travelling at a true 300 km/s had a headwind in which case it had an aether headwind of 600 km/s. In that scenario Bart's Barb's Betty's & Bonnies measured speeds are ok, but lets look at the other possible scenario, ie lets nextly assume that the rocket has a tailwind, in which case the rocket feels an aetherwind of 000 km/s.

BART 302 302 302. Ok in this scenario the aetherwind is a tailwind in which case the rocket feels an aetherwind of 000 km/s. Bart, as before, measures that Barb's Betty's & Bonnie's speeds are say 302 km/s. Barb (using Bart's rod & clocks) too measures 302 km/s. Betty (who uses Bart's rod)(but has an on-board clock which has an aetherwind of 000 km/s blowing throo it & it therefore ticks true, & it ticks faster than Bart's clock) measures say 301 km/s. Bonnie (who has her own on-board rod which has an aetherwind of 000 km/s blowing along it & it is therefore true length, & is longer than Bart's rod)(& Bonnie has 2 on-board clocks) measures say 300 km/s.

[crawler]

Today i continue the theme that measuring speed aint simple in our aetheric world.

CLAY. Clay Candy Cindy & Colleen repeat Bart's 6 rocket experiments, but this time Clay also has a 300 km/s vertical aetherwind blowing throo his rod, in addition to the 300 km/s aetherwind blowing along his horizontal rod.
CLAY'S ROD. Lets say that the vertical wind is upwards, however upwards or downwards makes no difference to the length of the rod, because the length of the rod depends on the component of the aetherwind blowing along the rod, the perpendicular component (we assume) only affects the thickness of the rod (& the thickness aint important here).
CLAY'S CLOCKS. However the vertical aetherwind does affect Clay's clocks. Ordinary clocks are i reckon sensitive to both the size of the wind & the direction, but i assume that (Clay's) atomic clocks are sensitive to size but not direction. The size of the aetherwind is the size of the full vector, which in this case is 300along+300up=425 km/s.

CLAY 303 303 303 303 303 303. Clays rod is the same length as Bart's(ie shorter than true), & his clocks tick slower than Bart's (ie much slower than true). In that case we can say that Clay measures that Candy's Cindy's & Colleen's speeds are say 303 km/s. This is so for all 6 measurements, ie 3 where the rocket has a headwind, & 3 where the rocket has a tailwind.

CANDY 303 303. Candy (using Clay's rod & clocks) too measures 303 km/s. This is so when Candy's rocket has a headwind & when it has a tailwind.

CINDY 305 302. Cindy uses Clay's rod, but has an on-board clock. If the rocket has a headwind the clock is slowed by a vector of 600along+300up=671 km/s, & we can say that Cindy measures say 305 km/s. If the rocket has a tailwind the clock is slowed by a vector of 000along+300up=300 km/s, & the measured speed is say 302 km/s.

COLLEEN 310 301. Colleen has her own on-board rod & 2 on-board clocks. If the rocket has a headwind the rod is shortened by an aetherwind of 600 km/s, & the clocks are slowed by a vector of 600along+300up=671 km/s, & we can say that Colleen measures say 310 km/s. If the rocket has a tailwind the rod has an aetherwind of 000 km/s in which case its length is true, & the clock has an aetherwind of 000along+300up=300 km/s, & the measured speed is say 301 km/s.

[Brent72]

ATOMIC CLOCKS. However i reckon that atomic clocks can be different to conventional clocks, because atomic clocks can suffer an intrinsic ticking dilation due to the effect of aetherwind on electron orbits.

How can the orbit of electrons be affected in an atomic clock, but the orbit of electrons in a normal clock are not?
Surely all clocks are essentially made up of what we call ‘atoms’ with their composite electrons?
Thanks

[crawler]

ATOMIC CLOCKS. However i reckon that atomic clocks can be different to conventional clocks, because atomic clocks can suffer an intrinsic ticking dilation due to the effect of aetherwind on electron orbits.

How can the orbit of electrons be affected in an atomic clock, but the orbit of electrons in a normal clock are not?
Surely all clocks are essentially made up of what we call ‘atoms’ with their composite electrons?Thanks

I think that micro atomic clocks measure the frequency of some kind of electron orbital dance. However i think that somewhere in there they use a crystal tuning fork which is a macro clock to enhance their signal or something, hence i am puzzled.

Ordinary macro clocks (tuning fork, balance wheel, pendulum, etc) & processes measure frequencies, & these are affected by macro mass & dimension etc. Hence macro clocks are affected by macro dimensional contraction,which arises from change in the aetherwind velocity.

All micro & macro clocks etc are also affected by a mysterious effect produced by the nearness of mass. This effect also gives us Shapiro Delay, predicted by Einstein. It is not due to gravity, nor to the velocity of the aetherwind.

I would like to see how altitude affects atomic clocks at the south pole versus the north pole. I think that scientists will soil their undies.

[Brent72]

Interesting points there Crawler. However I still don't see how time can be inherent in one particular body (such as as a clock) and change with respect to the environment around it. This is the biggest problem I have with Einstein's relativity. (This gives rise to the twins paradox which in my view has never actually been resolved and never will be).
Time is not some property of spacetime; any such description is a mathematical construct and has no physical meaning. Time is simply the continuation of the present.
Time dilation is therefore an illusion based on the false assumption that 'c' is constant in all reference frames. Time dilation is better explained with variable light speed (Dicke, 1957). E.g: https://physicsdetective.com/the-princi ... ravitation.
Variable light speed also explains the Shapiro delay, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift and the perihelion advance of Mercury (all the so called tests of GR), [Unzicker, 2015, chap 8 'Einstein's Lost Key']. (Let's leave the so-called 'gravitational waves' from LIGO for another day).

[crawler]

Interesting points there Crawler. However I still don't see how time can be inherent in one particular body (such as as a clock) and change with respect to the environment around it. This is the biggest problem I have with Einstein's relativity. (This gives rise to the twins paradox which in my view has never actually been resolved and never will be).
Time is not some property of spacetime; any such description is a mathematical construct and has no physical meaning. Time is simply the continuation of the present.
Time dilation is therefore an illusion based on the false assumption that 'c' is constant in all reference frames. Time dilation is better explained with variable light speed (Dicke, 1957). E.g: https://physicsdetective.com/the-princi ... ravitation.
Variable light speed also explains the Shapiro delay, gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift and the perihelion advance of Mercury (all the so called tests of GR), [Unzicker, 2015, chap 8 'Einstein's Lost Key']. (Let's leave the so-called 'gravitational waves' from LIGO for another day).

Yes some good stuff in there. Stephen Crothers says that silly Einsteinian ideas mean the clocks dont just measure time, they are time.

[Brent72]

Yes there's been some nice published work around variable light speed. For example Krogh et al (2006) hypothesized that light speed varied with gravitational potential, which in turn corresponded to vacuum energy. Like the speed of sound in a gas, the velocity is less where the energy density is lower. Basically they showed that this approach fits the observed data for gravitational redshift, the precession of Mercury's orbit and light deflection as well (or better) than Relativity.
They also talk about a theory of gravity based on electromagnetism. Reference here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9910325.pdf

[crawler]

Yes there's been some nice published work around variable light speed. For example Krogh et al (2006) hypothesized that light speed varied with gravitational potential, which in turn corresponded to vacuum energy. Like the speed of sound in a gas, the velocity is less where the energy density is lower. Basically they showed that this approach fits the observed data for gravitational redshift, the precession of Mercury's orbit and light deflection as well (or better) than Relativity.
They also talk about a theory of gravity based on electromagnetism. Reference here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9910325.pdf

My photaeno drag theory is the only theory that comes close to explaining the speed of light near mass.

[crawler]

Yes there's been some nice published work around variable light speed. For example Krogh et al (2006) hypothesized that light speed varied with gravitational potential, which in turn corresponded to vacuum energy. Like the speed of sound in a gas, the velocity is less where the energy density is lower. Basically they showed that this approach fits the observed data for gravitational redshift, the precession of Mercury's orbit and light deflection as well (or better) than Relativity.
They also talk about a theory of gravity based on electromagnetism. Reference here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9910325.pdf

My photaeno drag theory is the only theory that comes close to explaining the speed of light near mass.