0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There are other possibilities: it could just be that matter puts some kind of stress on the space fabric which diminishes over distance rather than matter having an extended cloud of unseen parts of itself spread out through the whole universe with the density increasing as you get nearer to the place where the matter is visible.
That's classical space-time if I'm not mistaken, which works as if the field would be able to extend outwards instantaneously.
In the case where that field would be matter though, it's the inverse: it could affect the trajectory of light, but it would also have to follow the angular rotation of the earth, so its tangential rotational speed would increase indefinitely with distance until it is faster than c.
It is not because we can not observe it directly that an exchange of information does not occur between massive bodies. One of the problems with that kind of interaction is that orbiting bodies would be forced to spiral away from one another since the information would always be late,
Are you sailing a bit this summer? Kite sailing is beginning to miss me!
I had a look at wiki on aether theories, and I discovered that Einstein wasn't so hot about totally discarding it from SR (at the end of the chapter), so why did he let the whole community discard it? Maybe because he was famous, and that admitting he was wrong about SR would have disappointed everyone.
You are still trying to prevent Lafrenière's wave from escaping into space while Ivanov and I have a similar one that is already confined. What exactly prevents you from considering our confined wave as an improvement on Lafrenière's unconfined one?
He was a bit more rational than his followers, but having started up something with massive momentum behind the toleration of contradictions which would in every other field be recognised as invalidating a theory, it set up something like the giant red spot on Jupiter which just keeps on going as a very stable, persistent entity.
How can you confine it when a wave radiates out in all directions unless you have some kind of container spread all round the outside?
Lasers don't radiate in all directions, and they work sort of like my particles: the light only bounces back and forth between two mirrors instead of between two particles.
In addition, the light emitted by one of the particles has just escaped from the steps between its components because they are always a little late from the particle's one, which helps to confine its direction, so as to be completely absorbed by interference in the line of sight between the particles. We can produce that kind of interference with lasers, and particles are a lot better tuned than them, so why couldn't they?
But how are your lasers held together without it built out of lasers that are built out of lasers all the way down, infinitely?
There's something missing; something which enables the energy of a particle to be maintained while it also influences the space around it for a long way out, and given the way that galaxies attract each other, we know that this influence reaches a very long way out indeed.
The usual interpretation is that those stars would be behind the sun and that their light would have been curved to reach us, but it neglects the fact that the sun would also look bigger, a point that is not part of the theory but that mainstream scientists did not contest when I discussed it on forums. If the sun looks bigger when we observe it, then we have to shrink it on the sky map and it doesn't hide those stars anymore, which contradicts the idea that their light has been curved. Of course, no scientist has had the self-sacrifice to go that far.
There's no point in doubting the bending anyway when you can take a photograph during a solar eclipse and compare it with one showing the same background stars half a year later: their positions are different due to gravitational lensing in the former case.
Six months later, the sun is on the other side of the Earth and its apparent size is the same as during the eclipse. Therefore, if we put this apparent sun on the map of the night sky, since the observed stars look closer to the center of the sun than during the eclipse, it will hide them, but if we consider that the sunlight has undergone the same curvature as that of the stars' light, then we know that the sun appears bigger than it really is, so we just have to shrink it on the night map and it will not hide them anymore, but it cannot hide them a day and not hide them the other day, so if I'm right about the sunlight's bending, something is wrong with this explanation.
On the other hand, my small steps show that mass may not be as mysterious as we thought and that mechanism can certainly not bend space. Curved space is a mystery built over another one, and each time science took for granted that mysteries were allowed in theories, they proved wrong later on.
To claim that light had the same speed regardless of the speed of the observer was a mystery that LET proves to be false, so why not assume that Einstein loved mysteries and consider that his curved space is probably equally false?
I do consider it to be false, but only because it's contrived and wholly unnecessary. 4D Spacetime doesn't actually work unless you add Newtonian time to it to coordinate the unfolding of events for objects following different paths, but once you've recognised the need to add that, you've got two kinds of "time" in the model, and one of them's superfluous. Removing the Newtonian one breaks the model because it brings event-meshing failures back in and invalidates the model, so the "time" to get rid of is the "time" dimension.
I know you like that explanation, but I find it more complicated than simply showing a simulation and saying that it is impossible to make without using aether, because then, we can't move the light with regard to the screen anymore.
I found a guy on Quora who talks about the historical environment that helped physicists chose SR instead of LET: https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Tesla-so-adamantly-against-relativity-theory/answer/Shiva-Meucci
As far as I'm concerned, he's a bit wrong about length contraction and time dilation being an illusion, but it is important to know how this drift has occurred if we want to convince. It's not only that SR is conceptually wrong, it's that it doesn't allow to get beyond.
What's the difference between that and what I'm saying? I show that the "time" dimension isn't sufficient and that Newtonian time has to be added to it, then I say that one of those two kinds of "time" is superfluous and that it can't be the Newtonian one that should go as it would have to be brought straight back in again, so it's the "time" dimension that needs to be chucked. And once we've only got Newtonian time left, we're back to an aether model.
Have you realised who he is? He set up (and owns) the anti-relativity site. He seems to have deleted the forum. Do you know when it disappeared and whether its deletion was announced there before it went?
He's a useful contact as he has a detailed knowledge of the history of this.