0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This is a redirect from here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?msg=376875The question is, we know that "aether" as used in physics text was a theory that assumed that space is filled with some stuff through which light propagates much in the way sound propagates through air. Because of this, if you're stationary in the aether, the speed of light should look constant in all directions, but if you're not stationary, the speed of light is no longer going to appear constant in all directions.
My question regarding this idea is--does this in any way differ from introducing special relativity and Lorentz transformations other than philosophically?
This stuff through which light propagates is going to be unlike any matter we know of, since Lorentz transformations keep it stationary in all reference frames--a property that nothing else has. Is this a testable hypothesis that differs in any way from special relativity?
Some aether theories presume that the aether is a fluid...Other aether theories, including my own (actually not a theory but a model), presume that aether is a solid
Quote from: Phractality on 05/01/2012 08:04:22Some aether theories presume that the aether is a fluid...Other aether theories, including my own (actually not a theory but a model), presume that aether is a solidHow far have you got when it comes to putting gravity in the model? (I havn't looked up your site as I'm short of time). What happens to your solid aether at the event horizon of a black hole where it looks to me as if it would need to be flowing inwards at the speed of light?
If gravity propagated at the speed of light, we should expect the Sun's gravity to pull us in the direction of stars which were directly behind the sun eight minutes ago. That would pull us into higher and higher orbits; solar systems could not exist.
Yesterday, MikeS posted several ideas in Does an Average Increase in Entropy Explain Away a Local Decrease?, which I'm pretty sure he learned from reading about my model. That post was deleted by a moderator, but you can view it here.
Yesterday, MikeS posted several ideas in Does an Average Increase in Entropy Explain Away a Local Decrease?, which I'm pretty sure he learned from reading about my model. That post was deleted by a moderator, but you can view it here. My model implies a reversal of the arrow of time from one universe to the next. Each scale-wise universe exports its entropy to the next larger-scale universe, and time reversal converts the output of entropy to an input of exergy (the opposite of entropy). The expansion of space is the mechanism for this transfer of entropy between universes. It calls into question the idea that the universe must die a cold death. It also suggests that successive scale-wise universes are made, alternately, of matter and antimatter.
Mike - Phract's post that you quote was on: 05/01/2012 08:04:22 - yours explaining it was part of your model of 20 years was « on: 05/01/2012 07:45:02 »I hope and think we can put it down to the fact that Phract had not read your explanation when he posted. You can PM me if you have any other problems or further instances or if I have misinterpreted the situation
"No aether" should be proved by experiment with clocks synchronization on satellite for start.Because time is some aether.
Quote from: simplified on 20/02/2012 16:32:56"No aether" should be proved by experiment with clocks synchronization on satellite for start.Because time is some aether. Aether models which predict measurable disagreements with relativity have been proven false. This only demonstrates that those aether models are false. It does not prove that there is no aether. GPS can only verify what has already been proven. If it can be proven that some phenomenon, such as quantum entanglement, are faster than light, that will prove the existence of a preferred reference frame in which the FTL phenomenon has the same speed in all directions. Special relativity proves that no FTL phenomenon can have the same speed in all directions, except in one preferred reference frame. When and if such a preferred reference frame is identified, it will lend credence to some aether models, and disprove others.Experimenters working with quantum entanglement have claimed instantaneous (in some unspecified reference frame) transfer of information across distances up 16 km. Mainstream scientists claim that quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate FTL. However, FTL communication may not be needed to prove, after the fact, that information was transferred FTL.
These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).
Quote from: simplified on 22/02/2012 16:18:43These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).I think they're still scratching their heads over the apparently FTL neutrinos. (I'll be very surprised if neutrinos can be FTL.) Clock synchronization errors can result in false conclusions. Clock synchronization is fully understood in theory, but the formulas can be complex when the reference frame is in a gravitational field, rotating once every 24 hours, and orbiting once every 365 days. If there is a flaw in the GPS system, experiments might reveal what it is. More likely, the flaw is in our application of relativity to GPS or our application of GPS to the neutrino experiments. (It could be as simple as ignoring the influence of the moon.) I don't think there is anything wrong with the relativity formulas, at least nothing that can be measured experimentally with our present technology. (GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.) The speed of light is the same in all directions in every inertial reference frame, regardless of whether there is a substantive aether. The Earth reference frame is probably close enough to an inertial reference frame. I don't think Earth's acceleration is sufficient to account for the apparent error in measuring the speed of the neutrinos. Anyway, I assume the brilliant scientists at CERN have taken it into account.