Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 20/01/2019 05:33:17
-
Lorentzian Relativity (LR) for calculating the relative ticking rate of clockA compared to a clockB needs (1) a calculation of relative speed & then (2) a relativistic calculation using gamma & then (3) a calculation of relative ticking followed by (4) a further calculation of relative ticking (depending on the question & available info).
Einsteinian Relativity (SR) needs (1) &(2). (3) & (4) are not needed. The scene & question are as follows.
SCENARIO. We have clockA sitting in the lab & we have an identical clockB moving away from clockA.
QUESTION. We want to know the ticking rate of clockB relative to clockA.
INFO. We know (i) the apparent ticking rate of clockA as seen by observerA in the lab (this is written on a sticker on the clock), & we know (ii) that the apparent ticking rate of clockB as seen by observerB moving with clockB is the same as the apparent ticking rate of clockA as seen by observerA (according to theory)(which is correct)(Einsteinians & Aetherists agree here), & we know (iii) the apparent size (500 kmps) & (iv) apparent direction (vertically up) of the aetherwind blowing throo clockA (this info has been given by others who we trust), & (v) the apparent relative velocity of clockA & clockB (10 kmps)(horizontally eastwards)(info from others).
Einstein says that the relative speed of clockA & clockB is 10 kmps & says that V in gamma is 10 kmps & calculates that gamma is 0.999 999 999 444 444, & predicts that observerA will see clockB ticking at 0.999 999 999 444 444 of clockA's frequency, & observerB will see clockA ticking at 0.999 999 999 444 444 of clockB's frequency.
Aetherist Igor has a problem. He knows that the apparent aetherwind blowing throo clockA is 500 kmps, but he needs to put the true speed in the equation for gamma, apparent speed is not allowed. But Igor got lucky. The apparent windspeed in any frame happens to equal the true windspeed in the rest frame. This happenstance arises because (i) measuring rods in frameA are contracted by the wind whilst (ii) the ticking of clocks in frameA are dilated by the wind, & (iii) these two effects cancel. In other words all apparent velocities of objects (eg rods & clocks) measured within any frame are equal to the absolute velocities that would be found in the rest frame (if that scenario were possible)(which it aint)(the lab would need to have a speed of 500 kmps here).
Likewise the apparent ticking rates of clocks are constant within any frame. The absolute ticking rate found in the rest frame dilates as the frame changes speed (ie as the wind changes), but the apparent ticking rate remains constant. This is because u measure one clock with another clock, & both clocks are affected equally by the change in aetherwind (if they are both stationary in that frame).
Igor says that the wind blowing throo clockB is 500 kmps upwards plus 10 kmps eastwards which is 500.099 990 002 kmps hencely gammaB is 0.999 998 610 555, & throo clockA is 500 kmps & gammaA is 0.999 998 611 110, & hencely Igor predicts that the true ticking rate of clockB relative to clockA is 0.999 998 610 555/0.999 998 611 110 which is 0.999 999 999 444 443. And as observerA's apparent ticking rate for clockA applies equally to observerA's measure of the apparent ticking rate of clockB then the apparent relative ticking rate must be the same, ie 0.999 999 999 444 443.
Note that Einstein's SR gave 0.999 999 999 444 444, which is surprisingly close to the correct answer, it is ok up to about the 14th decimal. Details have not been shown here but for an eastward horizontal speed for clockB of 25 kmps (instead of 10 kmps) the Einsteinian SR answer is ok up to about the 13th decimal.
Igor predicts that the true (& apparent) ticking rate of clockA relative to clockB is 1.000 000 000 555 560.
Einstein predicts 0.999 999 999 444 444. Hey everyone, look over there, identical twins, aren’t they lovely.
-
The above clockA & clockB example is not exact. We have not taken into account that the speed of light is slowed by the nearness of mass (as predicted by Einstein in his GR)(albeit for the wrong reasons). Einstein admitted that this was a major failure of his SR, but then ignored it, as have modern Einsteinologists (look at the modern standard for the metre).
Light is slowed due to photon & photaeno drag (which i have explained in other threads). Photaenos are emitted by all photons & by all particles (ie by all mass), they are a part of every photon, & they give us em radiation, they are some kind of vibration or spin or swirl of the aether. Photaenos congest space, & the poor aether finds it more difficult to do its thing. The congestion slows (drags) the propagation of the photaenos & hencely slows the main (helical probly) body of the photon.
This drag is also responsible for refraction at interfaces. Here the nearness to mass is more a case of being inside mass (ie the drag is maximal). I have not seen this photaeno drag sort of explanation for refraction anywhere else (i havnt seen any kind of proper explanation anywhere else). Anyhow, c (300000 kmps) is never attained anywhere anytime -- if u have gravity then u have photaeno drag, if u have an em field then u have photaeno drag, if u have photons passing close by then u have photaeno drag.
Thusly the speed of light everywhere is never at its full potential value of c, it is always a little or a lot lower, say c'. In the above example A & B were more or less at the same height on the surface of Earth, hencely the reduced value of c' applies to both fairly equally & ignoring c' by using the larger value of c (in the equation for gamma) doesn’t make much difference.
But if clockB were in a geostationary satellite then the relative ticking rates get complicated. Now we have to take into account that the speed of light throo the aether is different at A & B, because B is further away from the mass of the Earth & praps further away from the Sun (or nearer)(depending on the satellite's orbit). The speed of the light at B will be say c" which might be very different to the speed of light at A which is say c', & this difference probly cant be ignored. But Aetherists & i think Einsteinians do ignore it, & use the full value of c.
Unfortunately Aetherists don’t have any aetheric theory or equations for determining c'& c". I suppose that they could resort to adopting Einstein's GR which relates c' to the gravitational potential (which in effect is the escape velocity)(this v being i suppose subtracted from c)(not sure). However i suspect that Einstein's GR methodology might entrap u into using nett gravitational potential. No, nett is wrong, u must add all gravitational potentials -- the value of c' is affected by the gross potential, the gross nearness of mass (ie the gross number of photaenos), not the nett nearness of mass.