Jonathan
You say: "So it really is amazing how big of a shambles it all is!"
Yes, its a shambles.
Part of the problem was pointed out by an early critic of relativity ->
G. BURNISTON BROWN Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical
Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp.71—77
https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_279.pdf
who says - quote - > "Einstein never wrote a definitive account of his
theory"
which means --> what Einstein did - was present a series of papers where
he kept changing his mind.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jonathan Berry" <jonathanberry3...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; evg...@groups.io; aethericscien...@groups.io
Sent: Friday, 10 Nov, 23 At 02:20
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether
A few updates...
First because the Michelson Morley claim seemed plausible but not
totally conclusive, I wasn't doing the math myself and math isn't my
thing so I farmed that out to AI's that kept on having different ideas
so to be sure I had to really drill down and figure out the best most
pure way to do so.
I realized the easiest way was not to deal with a moving medium at all!
But instead to change the velocity of the wave in the medium and
recalculate!
See, if a medium is in motion relative to us, then the motion of the
wave is either increased or decreased relative to our frame, so there is
no need to deal with the complicating effect of moving mediums as we get
the same number of waves in a given space is the waves have the same
speed regardless of how that is achieved.
So say you have a wave that moves at 1000 meters a second and you have a
10khz signal, in 10 meters distance you have 100 waves (it takes 0.01
second for a wave to traverse the distance and in that time there are 99
buddies behind him),
So what happens if we increase the wave velocity to 1.5 times? Well
then it would take 15 meters to fit 100 waves and as such we have in
just 10 meters 2/3rds of those 100 waves, or 66.666 waves.
And if the waves moved at half the speed, how many waves would fit in
the 10 meter space? Well, double!
So if we had the medium being stationary and in a 10 meter space we
would have 200 waves, consisting of 100 waves in each direction, yes
superimposed.
But by having waves go 1.5 times faster in one direction but only half
as far in the other direction, this is meant to simulate the medium
moving at half the speed of the waves we get 66.66 + 200 = 266.66 waves.
So it turns out the Michelson Moley experiment DOES potentially tell us
something about Ether drift.
It doesn't tell us there isn't an Ether, and it doesn't confirm Lorentz
transformations though Lorentz transformation might explain why we might
be moving through and Ether and not detect it.
But another possibility is that there is an Ether and we aren't moving
through it but entraining it.
On the whole I am happy to accept that Lorentz transformations might, as
an absolute thing in line with Lorentz Ether Theory, exist.
And I have now heard LET be termed Lorentzian Relativity, and it is
that, but it is a form of Relativity with an Ether, with a prefered
frame. Of course Einstein believed in an Ether in 1920 and compared it
to matter.
What is most interesting however, that based on a reply from Roger
Anderson who saw my post, I ended up finding a few interesting notes and
here they are...
According to Sabine Hossenfelder YouTube Physicist and fellow INTJ,
Time dilation DOESN'T OCCUR from steady state motion! That is another
change to Special relativity - muons shouldn't survive longer either
at speed if she were correct.
This is interesting as relativistic time dilation seems to have been the
core component of SR in the 1905 paper, and AFAIK it was in the even
earlier Lorentz formulations even though time dilation isn't used to
explain null interferometer results.
Also if there is no time dilation, well sure you don't get twin Paradox
issues which is good, but there become some other serious issues, think
of a photon of light bouncing between parallel plates being used as a
clock:
______
o
______
If you move at a significant velocity (what this means in terms of SR is
debatable) to the right then the light is taking a zigzag course, and as
such if it isn't to be superluminal it must be ticking slower though not
to our perception moving with the light clock but to the fame that sees
it as a zig-zag. If all frames are to seem equal. So time dilation can't
be thrown out as Sabine tries. With an Ether frame this light clock
makes perfect sense with SR you have time dilation that being relative
to nothing becomes paradoxical in ways described, and the rest frame can
be learnt be removed of temporal Doppler effects.
I guess what this means is that there are different types of time
dilation we need to distinguish. There is gravitational time dilation,
and equivalent acceleration time dilation (G-force time dilation, one
experiment reportedly disproved), illusory Doppler shift time dilation
(which can be removed by calculation) and the TRUE time dilation, which
has been hidden by SR all this time because it is relative to motion
through an Ether! This is absolute motion based time dilation and with
it the light clock stops being so impossible and paradoxical.
And according to various Youtubers and even the LLM's, Relativistic mass
was thrown out as a part of Relativity in 2008!? This was a shock to
me!
Also it wasn't in Einstein's original theory either.
It is interesting how I have heard it as the reason Photons can't have
any rest mass, because it would turn infinite at C, and same with the
utter impossibility of FTL travel.
Originally it wasn't e=mc2, it was e0=mc2. This means that only rest
mass is considered! The most famous equation was changed and now
essentilly changed back.
Isn't that funny, one minute it is "UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE" to do something
because you need infinite energy, and then quietly with no announcements
Relativity has been changed to make it possible.
So, it was never utterly impossible was it, a less arrogant take would
have always been 'according to this theory we believe in which might be
wrong it's just an idea we like right now."
In much the same way I said "The Michelson Morley interferometer can't
measure drift.. unless I'm mistaken". I admitted the possibility even
though at that moment it seemed likely, I wasn't 100% sure and so I
admitted that.
In 1905 the theory said no Ether but in 5th may 1920 he gave a lecture
to the University of Leiden. He chose as his topic Ether and the theory
of Relativity. He lectured in German translated it says "How does it
come about that alongside the idea of ponderable matter, which is
derived by abstraction from every day life, the physicists set the idea
of the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? And he expresses
that it is unthinkable that there not be an Ether!
In the original paper Einstein talks about longitudinal and transverse
mass but that has been discarded entirely!
So it really is amazing how big of a shambles it all is!
