On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Many will disagree with your assessment of SR John. That is OK since it > is good for people to question the accepted theories. Perhaps you will > find someone else willing to spend the time attempting to modify your > beliefs. It was fun, but once an impasse is reached where basic lab > measurements are questioned, it is time to abandon the effort I have not questioned any lab measurements at all. Have you ever visited the Moletrap site? You might find a good home > among those guys. They would enjoy discussing your ideas. > I'll have a look, thanks. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Berry <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Feb 19, 2014 11:42 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Like you I have harbored the idea of an ether that is local. I just >> can not find a reason to assume any ether at all. > > > There are many reasons, there is quite a lot of evidence actually, > actually a lot especially if you are flexible of what we mean by aether, > but then there is logic too. > > Since Special Relativity is an impossible nonsense as I have pointed > out, and no defence of these or similar points has ever been made. > > Then there must be some kind of reference frame for various phenomena, > including the transmission of light, and any concept of a preferred > reference frame, local or universal is termed aether. > > >> I ask myself how any one direction, or velocity can be distinguished >> from the next in the vastness of space. And, if the ether is slaved to >> other objects, then what determines how well it is attached to the objects >> that it follows? Then you get to the questions of how small the attached >> thing must be to make sense. >> > > These are good questions. > Just because the answers are not automatically known does not invalidate > it, merely it sets challenges for experiments to be conducted which as far > as I am aware have not even been formulated. > >> >> I suppose it is easier to assume that one is not needed than to handle >> the multitude of problems that arise. > > > Ah, it is easier to believe a simple clean impossibility than a messy > truth that is more complex to answer and has unknowns. > > You have hit the nail on the head for why the aether is unpopular. > > >> And, no one seems to have any supporting measurements of which I am aware. >> > > You have not looked then, there are, but then there is the evidence from > mainstream physics that isn't looking for an aether... > > Have you heard of Higgs field? > Dark matter/energy? > Quantum probability waves? > Virtual particles? > Casimer effect? > Zero point energy, Dirac sea etc... > Frame dragging? > Probably more. > > There are perfectly fine experiments that have shown the existence of > the aether by physicists that have been rejected by their opposition to SR > too. > >> >> Maxwell's equations are based upon static charges and current (first >> derivative of charge with time) measurements. This connection between the >> electric and magnetic fields in space and time yield the velocity of light >> without any need for an ether. Then, if you accept that SR is sound, then >> again an ether does not appear to be required. >> > > Yes, but you can't say it is sound, and I can't find anyone who can > explain how SR can really play out with the examples I have given. > > >> So, I firmly accept the notion that an ether is not needed and that space >> and time are relative for each observer. >> > > You might, but only be dogmatically believing in something you can't > understand or explain or defend without opting out of the argument. > > And this might still seem more attractive than the aether to you, but > that doesn't make you right or even coherent. > > John > >> >
