Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone

[2clockdude]

[zoobyshoe wrote:]
Here Einstein describes both the Principle of Relativity and the
invariance of c as postulates. I don't see him asserting that one
or the other (or both) is a law of nature.

[2clockdude replies:]
You need to know the meaning of the phrase "scientific postulate."

A scientific postulate is the prediction of a law of nature (given
solely by nature, with zero interference by man) or of the physical
existence of some specific phenomenon.

Here is an example of the latter:
"The American theorists Murray Gell-Mann & George Zweig independently
postulated the existence of quarks."
[from American Physical Society - "A Century of Physics" - a
physics timeline at http://timeline.aps.org/servlet/Event?evtId=113]

Dictionary definition of postulate (verb):
To assume to be true.

A scientific postulate is a guess, a supposition, a
hunch, or a hypothesis about the nature of nature.

All scientific postulates must pertain to the nature of nature.

All scientific postulates must be experimentally testable.

Given that your claim is that Einstein claimed that his one-way
light speed invariance was a postulate, I have to ask you the
following simple question:

How can one-way light speed invariance occur experimentally?

One cannot postulate one-way invariance if one has already forced
it via one's definition of clock synchronization.

Note carefully that all scientific postulates and theories _must_
be falsifiable (or at least testable), but it is clearly impossible
to falsify (or to even test) Einstein's one-way light speed invariance
because it is _mandated_ via definition (just as are the length of an
inch and the value of water's boiling point in degrees F).

One can postulate one-way light speed invariance IFF (if and only
if) it could possibly happen in nature (at least in principle), but,
as I have taken great care to point out, one-way light speed invariance
simply cannot happen experimentally, so it cannot be scientifically
postulated.

If you really believe that Einstein postulated one-way invariance,
then tell us how this postulate could possibly be tested experimentally.
(Just show on paper a test for one-way invariance.) (There can be no
such test because one-way invariance cannot occur in nature. This is
why no one has ever performed the one-way Michelson-Morley experiment,
including Michelson, Maxwell, Lorentz, and Einstein.) (In fact, no one
has ever even shown _on paper_ how such an "experiment" could be carried
out!) (And, as I said, this is because no such "experiment" exists, not
even in principle!)

 

[wisp]

No journal submission?

I considered submitting my theory to a journal. But it meant signing away copyright and you loose control of your work, and the journals make profit from selling your work.
I think that placing your ideas freely on the Internet or self-publishing is just as effective.

 

[zoobyshoe]

2clockdude,

A postulate (noun) is:

a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition

postulate - OneLook Dictionary Search
Address:http://www.onelook.com/?w=postulate&ls=a

The definitions you gave lack the important point that a postulate is put forth in the service of a train of logic to see where it will lead if followed. Postulates are similar to stipulations in that they don't have to be proven to start the train of logic. Einstein took his two postulates and followed the train to his theory of relativity.

Experimental testability is, I believe, a requirement of a scientific theory, not of a postulate. You do not go about testing a theory by testing its postulates. If you could do that they wouldn't be postulates to begin with, but facts. To the extent SR has been experimentally tested and passed it lends credence to the postulates.

 

[petrichor]

I considered submitting my theory to a journal. But it meant signing away copyright and you loose control of your work, and the journals make profit from selling your work.
I think that placing your ideas freely on the Internet or self-publishing is just as effective.

"Signing away copyright" doesn't mean squat. It just means you can't make money off of photocopied/reproduced copies of the paper. This is because the journal took time typesetting it for you. You still own intellectual property rights, if you have applied for a patent. Journals are not a profit-making venture. Have you seen any journal publishers driving Ferraris? I haven't. Most barely make back enough to break even. And even then, scientists gripe all the time about how expensive subscription or page charges are.

An independent person can submit their work to a journal without page charges for free, which is a pretty good deal, considering how many people will read it. Journal articles have been reviewed and are much more respected than some e-mailed Word document on some theory. We scientists get this stuff all the time. Usually we hit delete. Submission to a journal is the essence of the scientific process. Let a few people look at it and judge the merit and suggest improvements before the rest of us waste any time.

I promise that the vast majority of scientists are open minded and would welcome an overturn of a paradigm, since it gives us all a lot of interesting problems to work on.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

As long as they are not requiring you to sign away your Moral rights (your right to your name, on your work...and no one else's!) in copyright law, then you have nothing to worry about...what they want is the right to grant the right, to others, to copy the work(s)

 

[2clockdude]

[zoobyshoe noted:]
A postulate (noun) is:
a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or
premise of a train of reasoning.

[2clockdude replies:]
You are merely repeating what I said re postulates, only with slightly
different words.

[zoobyshoe noted:]
Postulates are similar to stipulations in that they don't have to be
proven to start the train of logic. Einstein took his two postulates
and followed the train to his theory of relativity.

[2clockdude replies:]
Postulates don't have to be proved, but they must pertain to that
which could happen in nature - if only in principle; however, that
which Einstein "postulated" - as I have said - _cannot_ happen in
nature even in principle. (It cannot happen naturally because nature
cannot synchronize clocks.)

And a postulate is definitely not anything like a stipulation; the
latter is merely a man-given convention, like the length of an inch,
and, as I said, such conventions or definitions have nothing to do
with the nature of nature or with experimental results.

A physics postulate is the assumption of the truth of the occurrence
of something physical. As you said above, it is simply a scientific
hypothesis or a supposition. But the problem in Einstein's case is the
fact that his postulate or hypothesis or supposition assumed the truth
of that which cannot happen, not even in principle.

Perhaps the following will clear this matter up for you:

Do you believe that Einstein believed that he was hypothesizing that
the natural value of light's one-way speed is c in all frames? If so,
then you are saying that Einstein believed that the outcome of the
experiment which uses two clocks to measure light's one-way speed is
supposed to be invariance. But there cannot be such an experiment
due to the inability of Nature to synchronize clocks. (The one-way,
two-clock speed of light cannot be measured without two clocks
which have been temporally related in some way, and only if Nature
relates the clocks will the result be a natural one, i.e., one that
can be hypothesized about.)

[zoobyshoe noted:]
Experimental testability is, I believe, a requirement of a scientific
theory, not of a postulate. You do not go about testing a theory by
testing its postulates. If you could do that they wouldn't be postulates
to begin with, but facts. To the extent SR has been experimentally
tested and passed it lends credence to the postulates.

[2clockdude replies:]
Since a scientific postulate is a scientific hypothesis, it is clear
that a scientific postulate must be testable and falsifiable or it
says nothing about the nature of our world.

There are two major problems with the following sentence of yours:
"To the extent SR has been experimentally tested and passed it lends
credence to the postulates."

In the first place, SR = Einstein's light postulate, and in the second
place, this makes it impossible to test SR.

I challenge you to list a single scientific test of SR, i.e., any
experiment which either tests the sole basis of SR (namely, Einstein's
claim of one-way invariance) or any experiment which was _not_ rigged by
the use of clocks related by Einstein's definition of synchronization
(which forces one-way invariance).

Bear in mind that SR's "time dilation," SR's "mass increase," and SR's
"length contraction" are all fully dependent upon Einstein's clocks, so
are simply circular and therefore irrelevant results. (They are circular
because of the following fact: If one artificially forces clocks to obtain
one-way light speed invariance, and if one then uses these clocks to make
any measurements, then all such measurements are merely given by man, and
not by nature, so they have nothing to do with the nature of nature or
with physics per se. For example, here is how light's one-way invariance
is circular in Einstein's world: If I force clocks to obtain one-way light
speed invariance, then I will obtain it. For another example, here is how
SR's "time dilation" is circular: If I compare two of Einstein's absolutely
asynchronous clocks in Frame A with a passing clock, then I must of course
"see the passing clock running slow" because of the _given_ (mandated by
sheer man-given definition) absolute asynchronousness of Einstein's A-frame clocks.)

So far, you have tried to use a scientific postulate, a stipulation, and
a combination of the two, but you still have failed to show how SR be a
scientific theory or how Einstein's so-called light postulate can be a
scientific postulate or hypothesis.

No one can test a stipulation or a definition, but a scientific postulate
or a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory must be both testable
and falsifiable.

And just in case none of the above hits home, here is my backup
version:
I need you to tell me the full physical meaning of Einstein's light
"postulate" (my quotes). In other words, what exactly was Einstein's
hypothesis, presupposition, condition or premise in this case? What
physical process was being presupposed or hypothesized? I claim that
he was hypothesizing that if two clocks were used to measure light's
one-way speed, then the experimental result must be invariance. I
also claim that no such experiment can be performed due to the simple
fact that clock synchronization is not a natural phenomenon. But I
would like to hear your claim as to the exact physical meaning of
Einstein's light "postulate" (my quotes).

 

[IooqXpooI]

So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk. I on the other hand, I have spent over twenty years as a professional engineer, creating products and solutions to problems far more difficult than a silly, incorrect, interferomter model.

If you want the solution which destroys relativity then email me a request at paulanevill@fsmail.net, the file is too big to leave here. If on the other hand you are not man enough, then please feel free to continue your unprofessional tittle tattle. Ta ra.

Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE

So, tell me, can you prove it by taking pictures of the experiment and such?(Not really pictures, but you get my point)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, 2clockdude, I have recently been reading another thread on this very subject started by someone with a different name than you but who seems to have an identical argument to yours. I find this odd because your argument is so idiosynchratic.

I suspect, at this point, that you and he are the same person, and that this peculiar argument that relativity doesn't even qualify as a proper theory is being offered here for entertainment purposes.

 

[2clockdude]

['zoobyshoe' noted:]
... this peculiar argument that relativity doesn't even
qualify as a proper theory is being offered here for
entertainment purposes.

['2clockdude' replies:]
Authorship is irrelevant to the argument, and my argument
was certainly not for entertainment; if that is all you
have gathered, then you have not understood a word that I
have said. (OTOH, you may just be copping out.)

Let me make one more valiant attempt to get through:

Somebody, somewhere, at some time has made the claim that
light's one-way speed per two clocks is invariant. My
question to you is How can that be?
(Show us on paper how it can happen experimentally.)

 

[elas]

Tom Mattson

Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is, "Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of an aether?"

What about all the superfluous assumptions that have crept into ST for historical reasons, I have made it clear time and time again that I do not criticize the mathematics, but, I do criticize the vast array of entities used to explain the numbers; most of which cannot not be defined. This includes the latest addition ie 'strings'.

 

[paulanevill@fsmail.n]

So, tell me, can you prove it by taking pictures of the experiment and such?(Not really pictures, but you get my point)

Without wish to repeat myself, the solution can be obtained by leaving me your email address here, or emailing me on paulanevill@fsmail.net

 

[2clockdude]

[Tom Mattson noted:]
Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that
are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is,
"Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of
an aether?"

[twoclockdude replies:]
For one thing, SR is not a scientific theory because it makes no
predictions about nature. Everything in SR is based solely on a
definition - including light's one-way speed invariance - so none
of SR pertains to the nature of nature (because, as I just said,
it is nothing but a mere convention plus its irrelevant results).

Definitions and conventions from man are not natural laws or parts
of nature. For example, the length of an inch is a mere convention,
so it is not a part of nature, so it does not belong in any theory
of nature as a hypothesis. This is exactly why Einstein's invariance
of the one-way speed of light does not belong in any scientific
theory. (This 'invariance' is given only by convention or by mere
definition, just as is the length of an inch.) (Nothing in nature
says - or could say - that light's one-way speed is invariant,
so no scientific theory can say this.)

For another thing, as far as light's speed through space is
concerned, the aether essentially exists. Why? Because we know
the value of this speed (it is c, and it was given by Maxwell's
equations as well as the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment), and we
know that it does not vary in 'empty' space. What more could you
ask for re 'absolute' motion detection? (Well, as Einstein said,
you would need truly or absolutely synchronous clocks in order to
correctly measure light's passing speed in order to determine
your own speed through space. There, now, wasn't that simple!
(And no actual aether was even needed!)

 

[Antonio Lao]

I would like to step backward to the original purpose of MM null experiment.

The purpose was to find the special frame of reference required by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.

Newton's laws of motion and law of universal gravitation work on all frames of reference. And space and time are separated frames.

The rest frame that MM experiment was looking for is the ether frame. And this cannot be found.

In order to remove the requirement of EM for a special frame, the frames of space and time were combined into spacetime.

Unless the ether is found, special relativity will just have to remain the best theory of finding the rest frame of the universe.

The truth is there is no such "rest frame" anywhere in the universe. Everything is in motion even at the local infinitesimal region of spacetime as what GPB probe will detect the gravitomagnetism of spinning spacetime. But GPB might still fail to detect this local motion since it's more of a double spins configuration than that analogous to the gyroscope. If one of the double spins is much more dominant, GPB might be able to detect the precession and wobbles.

 

[russ_watters]

For one thing, SR is not a scientific theory because it makes no predictions about nature.

Have you checked out Nereid's links to the numerous predictions/experiments verifying SR? Any specific ones you disagree with?

This 'invariance' is given only by convention or by mere definition, just as is the length of an inch.

No. Thats a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of SR - and possibly experimental physics itself.

There, now, wasn't that simple!
(And no actual aether was even needed!)

So...you are saying you agree that there is no aether?

2clockdude, your posts display a rather severe misunderstanding of the way science works - ie, how experiments must work, what a "theory" is, what is and isn't acceptable in a theory, experiment, postulate, etc., etc. I've used the baseball analogy before: if you want to play baseball, you have to follow the rules. You're not following the rules: the game you are playing is therefore not science.

 

[2clockdude]

[2clockdude wrote:]
For one thing, SR is not a scientific theory because it makes
no predictions about nature.

[russ_watters replied:]
Have you checked out Nereid's links to the numerous
predictions/experiments verifying SR? Any specific ones
you disagree with?

[2clockdude replies:]
Name one that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's definition
of clock synchronization. All two-clock measurements in SR are
dependent upon this definition, so all of the so-called SR
"predictions/experiments" are merely the direct results of
said definition, so none are given by nature, and all are given
only by man via a definition.

For example, here is SR's "time dilation":

Given, a single clock passing two Frame A clocks:
[4]->
[4]----Frame A----[3]

---------------------[5]
[5]----Frame A----[4]
The A-Frame observers declare, "Look, Ma, the passing clock is
running slow!"

But, as anyone can see, this "time dilation" of SR has nothing to
do with

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.

[2] No single real atomic clock moving inertially can have more
than one atomic rhythm (and yet Einsteinian observers in various
frames find that a single passing clock "runs at many different
rates.")

[2clockdude wrote:]
This 'invariance' is given only by convention or by mere definition,
just as is the length of an inch.

[russ_watters replied:]
No. Thats a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of SR - and possibly experimental physics itself.

[2clockdude replies:]
So you tell me what's the basis for one-way, two-clock light speed
invariance.

[2clockdude wrote:]
There, now, wasn't that simple!
(And no actual aether was even needed!)

[russ_watters replied:]
So...you are saying you agree that there is no aether?

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.)

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.

We don't need an actual aether to have absolute time and to measure
our speed through space. All we need is a pair of (absolutely or
actually) synchronous clocks.

Einstein's clocks are not truly or absolutely asynchronous because
he was unable to determine absolute simultaneity, as he freely
admitted, but as his followers seem determined to ignore or twist
into something else.

Einstein's SR is not a scientific theory because it says nothing
at all about nature. ALL of SR's results are given only by man
via a mere definition of clock synchronization because ALL of SR's
two-clock times (i.e., the times in the SR transformation equations
and its composition of velocities theorem times) are dependent upon
Einstein's definition of synchronization. (None of SR's times are
given by experiment or by nature, so none are a part of physics.)

 

[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.