Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone

[kurious]

Michelson Morley can be explained by photons receiving gravitons from a particle-the faster the particle is moving TOWARDS the photon, the more the graviton is blueshifted and the more energy it has to slow a photon down so the sum of velocities stays constant as c m/s.

 

[russ_watters]

It's easy to prove that there is no aether, but the proof is moot
because as far as light's speed through space is concerned, there
is an aether. This is because this speed is known, and it never
changes. (No light ray can outrun another in 'empty' space; all
light rays in space always move at the same speed.)

Now you're saying that even though we don't have evidence of an aether, we know there has to be an aether because we know there has to be an aether. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Especially in light of your complaints about Relativity requiring assumptions.

As Einstein himself said, given the absolutely synchronous clocks
of classical physics, light's one-way, two-clock speed would vary
with frame velocity. This is due to the two facts I just mentioned.

Quite right - if those two "facts" are right, then the conclusion you draw is right. But oops: those two "facts" are not facts, they are assumptions. Why are those assumptions worse than the ones in SR? They have been experimentally proven to be wrong (or rather, both are erroneous applications of Newtonian physics to a non-Newtonian situation).

2clock, the whole reason Einstein developed his Relativity is that Newtonian physics does not accurately explain experimental data. You keep saying 'if we assume Newton's laws work in all cases, then...XXXX...' Well Newton's laws don't work in all cases.

Name one [experiment] that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's definition Name one that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's definition of clock synchronization.

First tell me what is wrong with Einstein's (and the rest of the scientific community's) definition of clock synchronization - and tell me how clocks should be synchronized.

2clock - again, this simply comes down to the fact that you don't like the implications of the data and as a result refuse to accept real, hard data at face value. Until you can do that, you'll never move past this problem.

 

[zoobyshoe]

[2clockdude wrote:]
There are at least two physical reasons why SR's "time dilation"
has nothing to do with actual or intrinsic clock rhythms, as follow:

[1] No two real clocks can both be slower than each other.

I brought this up here a few months ago. If observer A sees observers Bs clock as running slow, and observer B simultaneously sees observer A's clock as running slow by an equal rate, all it means is that measuring a faster moving clock by this method results in the illusion of time dilation. The fact the illusion is reciprocal demonstrates both clocks are running at the same rate. Any authentic asymetry in the passage of time would result in one measuring the other's clock as running fast and the other measuring the other's clock as running slow.

The conclusion "fast clocks run slow" should be changed to "fast clocks will be measured as running slow".

Chroot and Ambitwistor demonstrated, however, that in a situation involving two separate and different spacetime intervals there is an authentic asymetry that leads to the asymetric aging found in the twin paradox.

As far as I understand it, the fact that "fast clocks run slow" is an inaccurate characterization of what is actually happening, does nothing whatever to change the fact that the mathematical concepts of Relativity work in its application to the GPS etc. It just makes it harder to understand.

 

[2clockdude]

[russ_watters noted:]
Now you're saying that even though we don't have evidence of an
aether, we know there has to be an aether because we know there
has to be an aether. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?
Especially in light of your complaints about Relativity requiring
assumptions.

[2clockdude responds:]
Hmmm ... have you had your reading comprehension checked lately?

[2clockdude continues:]
What's really absurd is how bad this forum can be.

[2clockdude continues:]
Read or reread what I said about the aether.

[russ_watters quoted me:]
Quote:
As Einstein himself said, given the absolutely synchronous clocks
of classical physics, light's one-way, two-clock speed would vary
with frame velocity. This is due to the two facts I just mentioned.

[russ_watters noted:]
Quite right - if those two "facts" are right, then the conclusion
you draw is right. But oops: those two "facts" are not facts, they
are assumptions. Why are those assumptions worse than the ones in SR?
They have been experimentally proven to be wrong (or rather, both
are erroneous applications of Newtonian physics to a non-Newtonian
situation).

[2clockdude responds:]
Are you saying that you believe that a light ray's speed can change
in 'empty' space? Or are you saying that we do not know the value
of light's propagational speed in 'empty' space? Or are you saying
both of these things?

[2clockdude continues:]
Maxwell long ago told us the value of light's propagational speed
through space, and everyone but you knows that light rays do not
speed up or slow down as they travel through ('empty') space, so I
fail to see how you could deny that either of my statements is a
fact.

[2clockdude continues:]
Here is the schoolkid version (because apparently it's needed here):
Long, long, long ago, every physicist realized that if there were
only a Giant Tortoise in space whose speed through space were known,
and whose speed through space were constant (i.e., nonchanging), then
we would have all we need to determine our own speed through space.
All I was saying with my two facts is that each and every light ray
in space is exactly like the Giant Tortoise which was so long, long
ago dreamt of. Yes, Virginia, some Fairy Tales do indeed come true.
(In fact, we have had the Giant Tortoise [in the form of light rays]
for literally billions of years. It's just that Einstein failed to
appreciate this! Indeed, he did everything in his power to ignore
and to nullify it!)

[2clockdude responds:]
2clock, the whole reason Einstein developed his Relativity is that
Newtonian physics does not accurately explain experimental data.
You keep saying 'if we assume Newton's laws work in all cases,
then...XXXX...' Well Newton's laws don't work in all cases.

[2clockdude responds:]
When did I say that Newton's physics works?
How does SR explain any experimental data?
SR does not even explain the MMx.

[russ_watters quoted me:]
Quote:
Name one [experiment] that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's
definition Name one that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's
definition of clock synchronization.

[2clockdude wrote:]
First tell me what is wrong with Einstein's (and the rest of the
scientific community's) definition of clock synchronization - and
tell me how locks should be synchronized.

[2clockdude responds:]
I asked first.
And while you are at it, try to prove that Einstein's clocks are
correctly synchronized.

[russ_watters noted:]
2clock - again, this simply comes down to the fact that you don't
like the implications of the data and as a result refuse to accept
real, hard data at face value. Until you can do that, you'll never
move past this problem.

[2clockdude responds:]
Here is some real, hard data for you:
One-way light speed invariance is given only by definition, not by
experiment, and it cannot be given by experiment because no such
experiment exists. And, in case you don't remember, all of SR was
based solely on Einstein's baseless claim of one-way invariance,
so all of SR is utterly baseless, and SR is not a scientific theory.

[2clockdude continues:]
Here is some more real, hard data for you:
No one has proved the correctness of Einstein's clocks, so all
the results thereof have yet to be validated, including the SR
transformation equations, the SR composition of velocities
theorem, and every other two-clock-based result of SR.

[2clockdude continues:]
And here is even more real, hard data for you:
Einstein himself admitted that he could not determine absolute
simultaneity, which is the same thing as saying that he could
not absolutely synchronize clocks. And this proves that his
clocks are absolutely asynchronous, so are not correctly
related temporally.

 

[wisp]

Am I correct in thinking that a positive result of the Gravity Probe B in its GR test will have no affect on the one-way 2-clock test?

This GR mission costs $700 million and takes at least a year to analyse the data when the mission is complete.

What is the point in spending all this money, when they could do a simpler test using 2 clocks and a laser!

 

[Nigel]

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington, MA, MSc, FRS (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, Cambridge), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, p. 20.

‘To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... therefore there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden University, 1920. (Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15, 16, and 23.)

‘The idealised physical reference object, which is implied in current quantum theory, is a fluid permeating all space like an aether.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, MA, DSc, LLD, FRS, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1936, p. 180. (For further details: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)

 

[Antonio Lao]

Can something detect itself? If light is the ether, can light detect itself? If light is space, can space detect itself? Can a photon knows its own existence? Can a proton? Can an electron?

 

[kurious]

Since we are aware of our own existence and we are made of protons etc. the answer would seem to be yes! Consciousness seems to be a property of matter. The difference between consciousness and unconsciousness may be linked to the mystery of the difference between rest mass and massless particles both of which have energy and so are in some sense the same.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Thanks. I could not have said it better. But the quantization of mass (particle nature) and the incomplete quantization of energy (E=hf) in quantum mechanics can only beg the question for a more complete principle of quantization which to me is the quantization of the square of energy, E^2 = \psi_i \times \phi_i \cdot \psi_j \times \phi_j.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks for those quotes, Nigel, quite fascinating. Especially the ones from Einstein.