*Additionally there are cases where it has failed and these cases are consistent with an entrained aether, apparently GPS satellite systems show such issues.*
Can you say more about GPS satellite systems an their issues with the aether or provide a reference. On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:35 AM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> John, you make a lot of interesting arguments, but special relativity >> always seems to come through with the right answers. >> > > Mostly true, but it gives the same answers as an entrained aether. > Remember that SR is largely based of a rehash of an aether theory anyway. > > Additionally there are cases where it has failed and these cases are > consistent with an entrained aether, apparently GPS satellite systems show > such issues. > > >> When I ponder these same issues I can always bring myself back to earth >> by considering the behavior of a particle accelerator such as the LHC. It >> is hard to doubt that the protons are moving at very nearly the speed of >> light since the time it takes them to complete one revolution around the >> track is extremely well defined. The distance is accurately measured as >> well, so it is easy to make the velocity calculation. >> > > Sure, but what of those disagrees with the concept that the protons are > moving through an aether entrained by the earth reference frame? > And that a particle moving through the aether would be limited to less > than C? > > Additionally it could be that electromagnetic acceleration simply does not > work past the speed of light, so even if it were possible for a particle to > exceed the speed of light through the aether it might be impossible to get > it there without a second reference frame to boost it. > > >> With the speed limit so well defined, you must ask yourself why this is >> so? >> > > Because it is the speed limit (possibly not for everything though) of > movement through the aether. > > If the aether were entrained by a spaceship, it could exceed the speed of > light without exceeding the speed of light locally. > > >> Time dilation is something that the observer determines as I have been >> saying in earlier posts. The particles that are moving at such a fantastic >> velocity do not believe that they are any different than when at rest. It >> so happens that they are correct according to their instruments while all >> the other observers in motion relative to them measure otherwise. >> > > If you ramp up from particles to trains, or spaceships I think you will > have a hard time envisioning this. > > Consider the example of a train on a circular track. > If you stand in the center of the circle you can easily see the people on > the train, and their clocks. > initially your clock and theirs are in sync, but they start moving and you > see their rate of time low, maybe almost stop if they move fast enough, you > can use a stroboscopic light to make it easy to see their clock. > Perhaps years pass for you, but you only see the train clocks advance a > few seconds. > > Meanwhile the passengers on the train may not see you as moving given you > are in the center, but if you stand anywhere else they would see you as > moving and hence your clock would seem to stop. > They experience years on the train while they see your clock stop. > > Then the train suddenly comes to a stop, both expects the others clock to > be significantly retarded behind theirs. > > Additionally if you have an issue with the circle (despite this being the > case for particle accelerators) you could have other trains moving at the > same speed that are on a straight track, in the brief moment they spend > near each other the 2 trains could communicate in real time and even > theoretically passengers could switch train, clearly the circular train > must have the same degree of time dilation as ones moving in a linear > manner. > > Special Relativity's time dilation is based on the idea of a spaceship > leaving earth and communication that does not undergo Doppler shift if not > considered, and the arguments state that you can't calculate Doppler based > time distortions because that wouldn't be sporting. > But you can have instantaneous communication at right angles to the > direction of travel. > > So it really doesn't hold up at all. > > It's just an illusion, a bluff, everyone else believes it peer pressure. > > Because it makes the same predictions as an entrained aether would in many > cases it seems to hold up well enough. > > And most find an illogical but popular and 'clean' model more attractive > than a messy semi entrained aether, so we have SR, but it's not the truth. > It's a convenient lie. > >> >> It is a fun exercise trying to prove special relativity is wrong, but >> you will eventually come to the realization that it is correct. >> > > Funny, because in 15 years I have never had one person point to the flaw > in these thoughts, just that it must be true coz it's popular and who wants > to disgrace almost 110 years of science. > > John >
