0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
@mad aetherist QuoteIf nothing can travel faster than light then doesnt that mean that nothing can travel at more than 2c?Meaning that i can go at up to 1c throo the aether in one direction & u can go at up to 1c throo aether in the other direction then the relative speed tween us is up to 2c, so nothing can be seen to travel at 2c nor at more than 2c.That link said it would explain gravity, but i didnt see one word. And nothing explaining mass. Nor inertia.How pleasant to meet up with a fellow aetherist in what, as you can obviously see for yourself, is an extremely hostile Einsteinian environment! OK! So coming to your post that speeds up to 2c are possible. I think you have overlooked the fact that this is an Aether theory. What does an Aether theory mean in this context? It means that the speed of a signal is governed by the properties of the medium and nothing else! Therefore it does not obey Galilean transforms and the two speeds 1c + 1 c would not add up to 2c. To illustrate. Imagine that we standing in a medium separated by 1c ( i.e., the distance that a signal travels in the given medium in one second). You send me a signal travelling at 1c and I reciprocate, with my signal also travelling at 1c. Then the speed of 1c is governed by the properties of the medium and nothing else. This means that it is not possible to generate a signal that will travel at at 1.5c or 2c. So if your signal is travelling towards myself and my signal is travelling towards you, they would not add up to 2 c. Rather they would meet up after a distance of 0.5c and the total time taken to travel the distance would be 0.5c since both signals only travel half the distance. The point is there is no additive transform. Next coming to the many, many objections that have been raised. Look at the gamma factor in the Lorentz transform. It is not something that exists in nature, it is something that you make with a conscious decision that such changes must occur. I send a signal such that x = t, you send a signal such that x’ = t’ . In order for x = t to be equivalent to x’ =t’ , there has to be a fudge factor with the result that maybe time dilates or length contracts, so that both readings are the same. That fudge factor is the gamma factor that has been consciously decided upon. Now, if a medium existed through which the signal (or the object) were travelling, there would be no need for a fudge factor, because all speeds are fixed by the nature of the medium. Hence no time dilation and no length contraction. Of course one could wax philosophical about the malleable nature of matter but with a medium present it no longer makes sense!
If nothing can travel faster than light then doesnt that mean that nothing can travel at more than 2c?Meaning that i can go at up to 1c throo the aether in one direction & u can go at up to 1c throo aether in the other direction then the relative speed tween us is up to 2c, so nothing can be seen to travel at 2c nor at more than 2c.That link said it would explain gravity, but i didnt see one word. And nothing explaining mass. Nor inertia.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/02/2019 21:46:39So what i said is that the maximum true relative speed (or the true maximum relative speed if u like) can be up to 2c (based on me going at nearly 1c in one direction & u going at nearly 1c in the other). As far as i can see that statement is ok in my aether & in the OP's aether. Hencely his/her statement that the max is up to 1c is wrong.Something can locally go close to 1c, but not all the way up to. If something is not here, then it can increase its distance from me (measured by a tape measure) as high a rate as you like. There is no speed limit under GR. There is only under SR, but SR is not a model of the universe. The 'S' stands for the special case that only is locally approximated.So you and I can go past each other in opposite directions at (locally measured by a stationary observer) nearly 1c, but we're each moving at less than 1c, not at 2c like you claim. This is true in SR, and hopefully you don't consider either to be moving at 2c in your view, or for that matter even near 1c since you've not taken gravitational dilation into account. Under SR and GR, you don't need to since the speed is a local measurement, but under an absolute theory with absolute space, you also need to adjust for absolute time. The nearby planet slows both of us down, so we're not actually moving at close to 1c in any absolute sense.
So what i said is that the maximum true relative speed (or the true maximum relative speed if u like) can be up to 2c (based on me going at nearly 1c in one direction & u going at nearly 1c in the other). As far as i can see that statement is ok in my aether & in the OP's aether. Hencely his/her statement that the max is up to 1c is wrong.
Quote from: HalcUnder SR and GR, you don't need to [take gravitational dilation into account] since the speed is a local measurement, but under an absolute theory with absolute space, you also need to adjust for absolute time. The nearby planet slows both of us down, so we're not actually moving at close to 1c in any absolute sense.I got bogged down writing re all aspects of your reply. But i will home in on the main one which relates to the nearness of mass.
Under SR and GR, you don't need to [take gravitational dilation into account] since the speed is a local measurement, but under an absolute theory with absolute space, you also need to adjust for absolute time. The nearby planet slows both of us down, so we're not actually moving at close to 1c in any absolute sense.
To account for the nearness of mass, i like the idea of replacing c in the V V/cc in gamma with V V/c'c' where c' is the reduced speed of light near mass, & where c' is itself calculated by applying gamma' to c, & in this case that gamma' is calculated by using VeVe/cc in the equation for gamma, where Ve is the escape velocity.
V in the above is the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo the thing concerned.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 24/02/2019 23:52:15Quote from: HalcUnder SR and GR, you don't need to [take gravitational dilation into account] since the speed is a local measurement, but under an absolute theory with absolute space, you also need to adjust for absolute time. The nearby planet slows both of us down, so we're not actually moving at close to 1c in any absolute sense.I got bogged down writing re all aspects of your reply. But i will home in on the main one which relates to the nearness of mass.That's mostly what I was trying to point out.QuoteTo account for the nearness of mass, i like the idea of replacing c in the V V/cc in gamma with V V/c'c' where c' is the reduced speed of light near mass, & where c' is itself calculated by applying gamma' to c, & in this case that gamma' is calculated by using VeVe/cc in the equation for gamma, where Ve is the escape velocity.Good enough for discussion. Then the maximum difference in absolute velocity of two objects moving fast in opposite directions is a bit under 2c' instead of 2c. Problem is that c' might be less than half of c, so that difference would still under c for things passing each other.QuoteV in the above is the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo the thing concerned.What if there is no aetherwind? Take a location that has a star on either side of it. Which way might the aetherwind be blowing at that midpoint? There is no acceleration there (as there is no acceleration anywhere without aetherwind), and yet the clock there 'ticks' slower than a distant one due to the near presence of the two stars. The distant clock in fact has some aetherwind blowing through it due to the two distant stars. Why isn't that one ticking slower?This part has always confused me, how ticking rate is supposedly a function of speed of aetherwind blowing through something despite this simple example that contradicts it.