0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: McQueen on 13/05/2016 11:38:15AND if the speed of light is constant because it propagates through a medium, then a lot of the premises of special relativity and general relativity in particular will no longer hold true. In the same way the holy grail of Quantum Mechanics , namely the principle of wave/particle duality will be out of the window.The speed of light is always determined to be 'c' because the aether is relativistic. Meaning, the atomic clocks used to determine the speed of light tick at the rate they do due to the state of the aether in which they exist.The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit, it is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
AND if the speed of light is constant because it propagates through a medium, then a lot of the premises of special relativity and general relativity in particular will no longer hold true. In the same way the holy grail of Quantum Mechanics , namely the principle of wave/particle duality will be out of the window.
Quote from: evan_au on 14/05/2016 23:13:28In space, we do see a sea of photons - it is variously called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) or Sunlight, depending on its spectrum and source.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_backgroundQuoteThe CMB is a cosmic background radiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_background_radiationQuoteCosmic background radiation is electromagnetic radiation I am not referring to photons traveling at 'c'. I am referring to the sea of photons which fill 'empty' space analogous to the H2O molecules which fill the oceans.It is the sea of photons filling 'empty' space which are displaced by the particles of matter the Earth consists of. It is the sea of photons displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth which is gravity.
In space, we do see a sea of photons - it is variously called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) or Sunlight, depending on its spectrum and source.
The CMB is a cosmic background radiation
Cosmic background radiation is electromagnetic radiation
jerrygg88: Einstein’s special relativity and general relativity are excellent mathematical solutions which match experimental data. So they give true answers to measurements. But do they tell us what the gravitational field consists of? Do they tell us what the electromagnetic field consist of? What are the lowest quanta of charge in the universe? What are the lowest quanta of mass in the universe? Thus we want to know that the fundamental construction of the universe consists of.
GoC: What would you use for simultaneity? Knowing simultaneity of relativity would complicate the timing issue.
QuoteGoC: What would you use for simultaneity? Knowing simultaneity of relativity would complicate the timing issue. The sensible thing to do would be to test the hypotheses, which as I had stated is now-days not such a difficult thing to do, if the beams of light do not coincide, and if the difference in the timing of their respective arrival at the detector is within acceptable error, then the light is simply following Galilean transformations and there is no need to go into the question of simultaneity. If however, the beams of light do coincide then it really would be necessary to examine the question of simultaneity because it is such an unexpected result.
GoC: [/color]Y[/color]ou are confusing meta data which is a relativistic view and the physical position which is Galilean transformation. When you understand relativity of simultaneity is not the actual position of real time everything becomes clearer. Unfortunately the modern interpretation is non Euclidean rather than understanding the observations properly. [/color]Einstein said in one of his papers all views are equally valid. This is true because non are valid.
QuoteGoC: [/color]Y[/color]ou are confusing meta data which is a relativistic view and the physical position which is Galilean transformation. When you understand relativity of simultaneity is not the actual position of real time everything becomes clearer. Unfortunately the modern interpretation is non Euclidean rather than understanding the observations properly. [/color]Einstein said in one of his papers all views are equally valid. This is true because non are valid.[/color]You are making a simple observation unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. All I am saying is that the theory that light does not obey Galilean transformations and that time dilation and length contraction exist can easily be proved or disproved by conducting a simple experiment as enumerated above. If the theory is contradicted it merely proves that time dilation and space curvature cannot be taken at face value. There would be no need then to enter into complicated scenarios as to how that result could have come about!
GoC: To understand relativity correctly it takes allot of thought. Only when you put in the thought will you understand its beauty. I can give you clues I used to understand dilation. For proof of dilation caused by gravity a galaxy has a lens where dilation of space it occupies has a visible threshold. If we understand space has a medium of energy (dark mass energy) there is a threshold of dilated energy that becomes less dilated. This is relativity of a curved space. The curve is 3d onion like and not just a 2d curve with a tenser. So yes it can be taken at face value. Your inability to see past that hurdle is you giving up on the reality of relativity.
What would be the implications if new proof became available that an aether did in fact exist? What exactly would be the implications and repercussions for established physics. Of course the old concept of a stationary, extremely stiff aether such as is described in the luminiferous aether theories, has been disproved beyond any reasonable doubt by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which also led to new proof of the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, similarly aetherosphere theories, wherein the aether exists in a small pocket around the earth are also unrealistic and defunct. Yet the possibility of a dynamic type of aether is a stronger possibility today than it was in the 1920's when the idea of an aether was abandoned and Einstein's relativity theories came to the fore....................