Thoughts about Special and General Relativity from a Classical Perspective - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: kevin original
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2022, 08:14:13 pm
content: I tried wrapping my head around the explanations on youtube for special relativity, general relativity, and spacetime but they were all not intuitive. They seemed to me as leaping to an undeserved conclusion. What makes sense to me is the classical EM wave and luminiferous aether theory. I wrote down my rantings and pasted them below. I would appreciate if anyone could tear my arguments apart and tell me where I am wrong in all this. Thanks!To better grasp the concepts of Einstein’s Relativity Theories it is important to have some understanding of the thought process behind their inception and the common thought of his predecessors and contemporaries. The scientists and physicists of yesteryear, who built and invented the founding mathematics and models of today, all had slightly differing yet firm mental models of invisible processes brightly illustrated in their minds. Today’s universities teach the physics that were founded from these particular world views from a sanitized, highly mathematical and theoretical perspective leaving the student with little grounded conceptual reference from which their equations were birthed. The commonly taught atomic model illustrates images of tiny BBs orbiting a nucleus of BBs with each BB having its own special attributes. This model quickly solidifies in the mind a particular world view consisting purely of particle collisions and the 4 magic forces that is not immediately intuitive and seems to ask more questions than has answers. It is even more frustrating when trying to reconcile this view with that of quantum mechanics and its own standard model plus the wave nature of electrons. It seems that one would be expected to learn about the solar system-like atomic model through grade school and then switch over to the quantum model in higher education. The founding fathers of electromagnetic theory had a heavy conceptual bias towards the wave theory of light and matter and the medium they propagated through.What most people fail to understand about Relativity is that it is not a commentary on distance and time so much as it is a commentary on space itself, or in other words, the aether. The discourse in Einstein’s day was not whether or not the aether existed but rather if there were such a thing as relative motion in the aether and if charge bound masses caused a drag or wind through this aetherial medium. Experiments showed null results for this aether wind and conflicting results as to whether the aether was completely dragged or stationary with respect to the motion of charge bound masses. The common thought of Einstein’s contemporaries was that all mass was electromagnetic in nature, although some argued that there must be non-electromagnetic forces holding the electromagnetic mass together. Our current understanding of the nature of matter is that it contains some non-electromagnetic form of inertia combined with some electromagnetic form of inertia. The non-electromagnetic inertia is called invariant mass or rest mass. Some individuals and text books combined both forms of inertia into a the term ‘relativistic mass’ but this lead to much confusion and has been mostly replaced by discussion of the invariant mass of a body.Einstein, unsatisfied with the contradictions between the emission theories of light and the constant speed of light described in Maxwell’s equations, generated his theory of Special Relativity(SR) without regard to the medium of light but rather from its experimental observations and his own intuition.1) The Newtonian laws of motion hold for bodies not in acceleration relative to each other.2) The Speed of light is constant for all observers regardless of their relative motion.The first postulate is based on Galilean Relativity, first described in 1632. The second postulate was a recognition that all observers in the aether saw the speed of light exactly the same and therefore a mathematical description of motion in 3 dimensional space does not need to take the medium of the aether into account when describing the motion of bodies. In other words, the aether was no longer important when describing the Newtonian laws of motion. Einstein thought he could ignore the aether completely with SR and the light quanta or photon, however, he soon recognized that this was limited and had to reincorporate the aether as a gravitational phenomenon later called ‘spacetime’. This new aether was necessary to describe gravity and the motion of bodies through the aether gradient that exists in the vicinity of invariant masses. He called this aether gradient a warping of spacetime or curvature. I will reserve the first part of this discussion for SR and address General Relativity(GR) later on.Now that we have a little background on the history of SR, let us discuss what the results are of taking these two postulates.Many pseudo scientific publications have attempted to explain SR in terms of bouncing balls or photon clocks. Most of these explanations are wrong or misleading at best. It is not their intention to mislead, the nature of the discussion is ripe for confusion and parroting of misunderstood ideas. We shall focus on the main two wrong ideas floating around the internet before discussing the real implications of SR.First wrong idea; not understanding the role of light as a definer of distance and time. Many thought experiments will try to explain how a body might observe two events happening at the same time while another body observes the two events happening at different times. They will conclude this is a result of time dilation alone and thus the two observers experienced time differently. The reason this interpretation is wrong is because the relative motion of the observers is not important. The second postulate of SR states that all observers will see the speed of light the same. Thus, if an observer is equal distant from two events, the two events will appear to happen simultaneously. If an observer is closer to one event than to the other, the closer event will appear to happen first, then the further event will appear to happen. This time delay is not a time dilation but rather a definition of distance between events and bodies in space, or a definition of space.An important fact of physics is that light defines and/or reveals space. The absolute reference frame of space is with respect to the speed of light, not to the absolute locality of space or invariant mass. It is because of this fact that we even perceive distances to exist. The only thing separating two bodies in space is the time it takes information to get between them, thus light defines and/or reveals space. Light defines space because light is an artifact or ripple in the aether and the aether defines space. Light reveals space by having a motion in the aether and thus setting the rate at which information can be transferred between bodies. Because the speed of light defines the time of space, it sets the metric by which invariant masses can be measured relative to each other, thus defining the space between two objects. We can conclude that if two observers disagree about the timing of events then the two observers must be located at a distance away that is proportional to the rate at which the light travels between them. This is not explicitly time dilation but rather a definition of distance and revealing of space between bodies.The speed of invariant mass is not absolute in the aether but relative. Does the speed of sound prevent aircraft from moving beyond it? No, supersonic travel of invariant mass is common place. Why should the speed of light prevent the relative motion of invariant masses in vacuum? Cherenkov radiation is the direct result of charged mass exceeding the speed of light in a particular medium; why would a vacuum be any different? Perhaps science has just accepted the notion of a universal speed for invariant mass and is afraid of the idea that it can be exceeded, fear should not prohibit science. A universal speed limit on invariant mass is no different than the idea of partial aether dragging or absolute space locality, except no one has seriously questioned it without retaliation from the grater scientific body. The main thing to consider about superluminal invariant mass in vacuum is that it would not be able to communicate with other masses around it due to its photon wavelength being too small to be adequately picked up by the slower bodies with respect to it. The inertial impedance mismatch would be so great as to prevent any interaction between the two bodies so any greater than light speed particles relative to an observer would not be visible as there is no metric to measure them against. Consider this, the energy of light increases with a smaller wavelength but the invariant mass spatial dimensions may be more or less fixed in absolute terms. At higher relative speeds, the energy of light is both increasing with respect to the source and not being absorbed as well with respect to the observer. This indicates a Goldie Locks condition for optimal energy transfer between invariant masses based on their photon wavelength which changes with relative motion and their diameter which does not change in absolute terms.Second wrong idea; not properly defining the role of the observer. Many thought experiments will try to explain time dilation in SR by showing an observer next to a light clock and both observer and clock traveling perpendicular to another observer and saying that since the perpendicular observer saw the light take a longer path through space that time for the observer next to the clock must have been slower. This is wrong because of the vary nature of light. One cannot observe a photon travel through space as if it were a tennis ball. Light reveals the space between two observers precisely because you cannot know the location of the light in vacuum, only the time it took for it to hit your eyeball or a detector. The perpendicular observer did not observe a photon or beam of light travel through space; the observer can only observe the light that has left the light clock and has hit his eye after a time delay as a function of the distance between source, mirror, observer and the speed of light. To be able to observe light as it is traveling through space requires higher spatial dimensions than what we mere mortals can observe and comprehend.If the observer did not see the light travel further in space, does that mean the light in reality did not travel further or that the observer was only incapable of observing the phenomenon? This is a trickier question because it assumes an absolute spatial framework. Going back to the partial aether drag idea, experiments have disproved this to be the case. If the aether is not being partially dragged then it must be fully dragged as proposed by some, or completely stationary as proposed by others. Einstein’s SR Theory and Lorentz’s Ether Theory, which are practicably indistinguishable from each other, both conclude a stationary aether. They assumed the stationary aether meant that space itself has an absolute spatial reference frame and thus time dilation or length contraction is supposed to explain all interactions. Space, however, is not the absolute reference as supposed, instead, the speed of light is the absolute reference which incorporates both time and space together and thus spacetime or the aether. This medium is the combination of two properties for which light manifests time and invariant mass manifests space.If light were a molecule of H2O moving through a body of water then you could conclude that it moves further in space depending on your reference, however, light does not pass through the aether but rather is the aether in transverse elastic motion to itself. If light were a hoe cutting a path in the soil then you could conclude that it moves further in the dirt with respect to one observer over another, however, light in a vacuum does not displace invariant mass, otherwise it would not be in a vacuum and its speed would compensate due to GR effects.If one could add a 3rd postulate to SR, it would be that the aether appears stationary for all invariant mass observers regardless of their regular motion. This is not to be taken as meaning the aether is motionless, rather invariant mass appears to move with the aether rather than through it, and electromagnetic or charged inertia is of nature caused by and contributes to the motion of the aether itself. Einstein must have concluded that spacetime was an absolute spatial reference, this would ensure that no invariant mass could ever exceed the speed of light in vacuum relative to any other invariant mass and thus enforce some cosmic speed limit. On the other hand, the stationary aether or spacetime is likely only a perception of location rather than an absolute locality and thus space itself is relative and no cosmic speed limit is warranted.It is evident that the aether is instantaneous. When uniform, it acts both as being stationary with respect to an observer and as being fully dragged along with that observer. The electromagnetic fields themselves are of instantaneous nature having an immediate action upon invariant mass mediated through charged inertia. We may find that charged inertia is nothing more than the motion and thus energy of the aether as it is confined to the immediate vicinity of the invariant mass via GR effects. It is only the rate of change of the aether or electromagnetic fields that are mediated by the speed of light. The fields themselves have no concept of time; their changing magnitudes, however, are restrained to light speed.With that background, let us try to answer the question regarding relative distance in the aether. The aether or spacetime works distance and time in conjunction with each other, it would not make sense to say that light, or the ripple of spacetime, traveled an arbitrary distance through itself. We could conclude that the only distance traveled by the light or photon is the distance between the source and mirror or the distance between the source, mirror, and observer and all other possible paths remain undefined until an observer is located in a manor to receive that photon at that location in space. In simpler terms, it does not make sense to speak of an arbitrary distance in the aether as having distance, only a distance between two invariant masses can have a useful meaning. Most SR examples dealing with light clocks can be satisfactorily explained in the context of defining the distances between light source and observer as they would actually observe and not as an imagined omnipresent observer from a higher spatial dimension.Having discussed some misconceptions of SR, let us now observe some actual effects of SR in connection with time dilation. Imagine Einstein riding on the back of a bus moving away from a clock tower at a significant percentage of the speed of light. While watching the clock tower move away from him, he observes that the hand of the clock on the tower ticks slower than the hand of the clock on his wrist. The explanation for this perceived time dilation is simple. Einstein observed the position of the hand at one distance away from the clock tower, then when he observed the hand move to another position on the clock face, his distance from the clock tower had increased so that the light moving from the clock tower to his eye had to travel further and thus took a longer time to reach him than the previous position of the hand. For Einstein traveling away from the clock tower he really did perceive the clock as ticking slower than his wrist watch.Follow up question: was the time experienced at the tower actually slower than the time experienced by Einstein? The simple answer is no. We can see why this is the case even from the perspective of near light speed Einstein. If you are moving away from an object then the object does not only appear to get smaller, it is in fact having less of an influence on you the observer. While moving away from an object you will notice that it quickly loses any affects it may have had when it was closer to you. The gravitational attraction between you and the object is less, the size of the object in your view is reduced. The only non-imaginary time dilation experience comes from an observer experiencing GR effects where the space between objects is not changing, thus conserving influence between the bodies. Apparent time dilation effects due to relative motion will be in connection with other effects obvious to the observer so he would have a way of discerning if what he is experiencing is not true time dilation but relative motion.To summarize, if two bodies are separated from each other in space then there will always remain a time difference between the bodies related to the distance between them and the speed of light. If the separated bodies are at a constant distance apart with respect to time then there will be no time dilation, only a time delay. The bodies will need to be in motion away from each other to experience the time dilation of SR. They will also need a really good telescope to make any useful measurements of each other’s local clocks. In other words, SR time dilation does not have much application between two moving invariant masses. That said, there are many real world examples of SR time dilation with respect to non-invariant inertia.One example of SR effects is the Plank-Einstein relation. An observer moving against the direction of light travel with respect to the source will see a blue shift – that is, the wavelength looks shorter and appears as having a higher frequency. If an observer moves with the direction of light travel, he will see a red shift – that is, the wavelength looks longer and appears to have a lower frequency. This doppler shift manifests as the frequency changing, not the speed of the wavefront. A blue shift in light manifests as an apparent increase in inertia. A higher inertia with the fixed speed of light gives the light wave a higher energy with respect to the source. The same is true in reverse, a red shift has an apparent decrease in inertia and thus a lower energy. This fixed-speed variable-inertia phenomenon may have contributed to Einstein’s declaration that the mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content, or mass-energy relation.Another example of SR time dilation is the apparent phase shift between the input voltage and current to an imaginary impedance such as an inductor or capacitor. The changing current through an inductor is a direct result of the magnetic field; when viewed on an oscilloscope one may assume that the magnetic field is time dilated with respect to the electric field or input voltage. I say time dilation even though it is evident there is only a time delay, not a slowing of time. This is still appropriate because it is not frequency dependent; the same 90 degree time delay exists regardless of the input frequency, neglecting parasitic effects, hysteresis, and saturation. If the input voltage follows a step function, the input current rises at a slower rate with respect to the voltage, this represents a true time dilation. Given sinusoidal motion, the time delay between the input voltage and magnetic flux of an inductor/transformer is imaginary for the following two reasons.1) The phase delay can be reduced or reversed by adding parallel capacitance.2) The current signal on the oscilloscope is not the true time of the magnetic field.The first reason is self evident in power factor application, however, the details of this are not the focus of this current discussion. The second reason takes some extra consideration. The oscilloscope does not directly read magnetism, instead it reads a voltage derived from the effects of magnetism. The voltage that is read back reflects the state of the magnetic field, but after an apparent time delay. If this time delay were real then you would expect that a transformer output voltage that is a derivative of the magnetic flux would also experience this time delay and perhaps two time delays for a combined 180 degree phase shift. The output voltage of a transformer is in fact 180 degrees out of phase with the input voltage as expected but is not caused by what you may think. If you view the transformer transient response at the start of a single wave, you will observe that the output voltage falls at the exact moment the input voltage is rising. If the apparent time delay of the magnetic field were real, you could not expect to see the output voltage change at the same instance as the input, instead you would expect to see it change after one whole period of rotation, which is not what is actually observed. If the magnetic field is in fact changing in direct response to the input voltage then where does the 90 degree time delay come from? The answer is that the apparent time delay is not in fact a shift in time rather it is a shift in space. The magnetic field is spatially 90 degrees adjacent to the electric so the current reflects this as a 90 degree shift in time with respect to the input voltage. To reiterate, the 90 degree phase shift is actually a shift in space, not a shift in time. The apparent shift in time of the magnetic field with respect to the input voltage is imaginary and corresponds to a phase shift in space itself. The output winding also sees a 90 degree phase shift for a total of 180 degrees of rotation with respect to the input voltage.The reason the output voltage of a transformer falls with the input voltage rise is because the output voltage is related to the input voltage through 2 derivatives. The input current or magnetic field changes as a derivative of the input voltage and total charge capacity through the input winding. The output voltage is then derived from the changing input current or magnetic field and inductance. The second derivative of a sine wave is a negative sine wave; this is one of the reasons the phase dot notation is less intuitive. The dot notation assumes you are expecting the output voltage to be in phase with the input voltage even though the derivation of the output voltage is out of phase with the input voltage. A better transformer phase notation would be a vector current notation with a small arrow. Giving the direction of current flow allows more flexibility on which terminal to have it applied and in which direction. It is easier to determine the voltage relationship with a current vector notation rather than by a phase dot alone, especially with multiple taps involved.Lets get back to SR. In the example with the bus and clock tower, both the bus and the clock tower see each other’s time as moving slower. This is not a universal phenomenon as Einstein thought. If the bus were moving towards the clock tower at near speed of light then both the tower and the bus would see time moving faster for each other. The misconception about universal speed time dilation stems from thinking in terms of an absolute spatial reference in the aether. There is no absolute motion for invariant mass, only relative motion. That is, not all motion leads to time dilation. Only motion away from two bodies leads to time dilation, motion towards two bodies leads to time speeding up. The twin paradox tries to point out this flaw but is ignored or given wrong explanations. Both twins see time slowing down for each other as one flies away in a rocket ship. Once the rocket makes its turnaround at the furthest point away, the twins are no longer seeing time dilation, only a time delay. When the rocket starts heading back to earth both twins see time speeding up for each other until the rocket comes to rest back on earth. The sum of the time dilation plus the time speeding up results in a net zero dilation with only the local time having passed for each, so they end up the same age as each other. You can trace any path through space at any speed and kinetic acceleration and the end result will always be the same, time will be delayed by the distance between the two observers related to the speed of light. If the distance between observers is zero, they will see no time delay, if the distance is changing at a constant rate, they will see a reduction or increase in the local time of the other observer as a function of the distance between them changing over time and the speed of light. SR time dilation, unlike GR time dilation, is imaginary because you can always reverse the amount of time that is dilated by moving back towards the other observer. As the 2nd postulate of SR implies, time is merely a function of distance. In terms of SR, a disagreement in time is the manifestation of space.Now is a good time to discuss the implications of GR. GR is a set of equations describing the fabric of spacetime or the aether gradient surrounding bodies of invariant mass. The GR equations are intended to describe large scale bodies but the concepts also apply to the atomic scale.An atom has no thermal energy when it has no chaotic motion of the invariant mass of the atom with respect to adjacent atoms. At this 0 Kelvin state, it would appear from an observer that the atom has a static electromagnetic field or aether gradient or spacetime curvature. If the invariant mass of the atom is stationary with respect to the invariant masses of the adjacent atoms then any motion of the local aether within that gradient or spacetime curvature would be considered electric charge and is the source of the electromagnetic energy of the atom adding to the total inertia and relativistic mass. How can the electric charge be in motion and also not cause dragging in the aether? Short answer: Time dilation. Unlike SR reversible time dilation, GR time dilation cannot be reversed and defines the local time of all invariant mass. GR time dilation may have the appearance of reversing only to the extant that you can leave an externally induced gravitational field, but this does not reverse the local time processes for the observer, only diminishes the positive magnitude but never less than zero(no time travel permitted). If invariant mass did not experience this time dilation then no person would experience their internal clock ticking or be able to observe time pass for outside events. The local motion inside the event horizon or electron shell of the atom is a wave function. If the wave function has too much energy for the static or instantaneous aether gradient at rest state then it may transfer a quanta of this energy out of the electron shell as a photon. A ripple in the aether with an appropriately matched wavelength may transfer energy and thus inertia to/from an atom. For longer wavelengths, a collection of atoms in the proper orientation inside a conductor may in unison collect this energy out of the aether and transfer it as electrical energy. An electrical wave sent to an antenna may likewise transfer energy and thus inertia into the aether as Einstein postulated in his 1905 mass-energy paper.The (aether gradient or spacetime curvature)-induced time dilation also exists and is more manifest on a large collection of invariant masses such as planets and stars. At a large enough scale it becomes possible to measure the collective time dilation as it affects the motion of light near massive bodies. On the scale of massive bodies any ejected inertia from the gravitational flux is practicably impossible to capture with antennas and is therefore measured with gravitational wave detectors. The only difference between an extremely long and low energy light wave and a gravitational wave is that the light wave detector measures the collective electromagnetic energy changes with respect to a stationary invariant mass transmission line and the gravitational wave detector measures the collective invariant mass motion with respect to the speed of light. In other words, an antenna is used to measure the aether against a transmission line, but a gravitational detector is used to measure the transmission line against the aether.Aether drag, as previously discussed, does not exist for constant aether velocity as with invariant mass inertia. The acceleration of the aether will, however, induce a dragging effect. The stagnant aether gradient or spacetime curvature surrounding an invariant mass or collection of invariant masses acts as a change in velocity of light exponentially increasing in speed as you move further from the invariant mass center. This phenomenon is the reason for gravitational time dilation and the apparent force of gravity between bodies. The true force of gravity is not experienced by merely being in this curvature but manifests when being opposed by the kinetic collection of invariant masses. That is to say, the only force caused by gravity is that which is felt by your feet on the ground or from your butt in a chair. A free moving/falling object does not experience the force of gravity, only the time dilation-induced motion of it.It is a true phenomenon that observers in a stronger gravitational field will experience a slower time than those in a weaker gravitational field, this is due to the local speed of light moving slower under gravitational time dilation than in open vacuum. One unappreciated caveat to this idea is the assumption that collective gravitational spacetime curvature is additive to the local one experienced on the atomic level. If it is the case that atomic spacetime curvature and the collective spacetime curvature combine into a stronger total curvature, then the atom will experience a real time dilation. It could be, however, that the absolute curvature caused by an atom cannot be modified in addition or subtraction by means of the presence of a collective gravitational field. In other words, the time dilation experienced by a body in a strong gravitational field may not be shared on the atomic level due to localized gravitational saturation. One way of testing this is to measure the half-life decay of some radioactive material in different gravitational fields and then compare them to see if the material in the stronger gravitational field has lost less invariant mass than the material exposed to a weaker gravitational field. One may speculate that the combined gravitational curvature is additive at a certain geometry and this may be the cause of the nuclear forces trapping atomic nucleons together where they may otherwise be repelled.If we could condense all of Relativity into 4 postulates it would be the following:1) The speed of light is constant for all observers regardless of their relative motion.2) The aether or spacetime is stationary for all observers regardless of their constant motion.3) If an observer can conclude that both time and distance are changing then they are under the influence of SR, experiencing in actuality only one of these dimensions change.4) If an observer can conclude that either time or distance is changing then they are under the influence of GR, experiencing in actuality both of these dimensions change.It would be amiss not to define some of the frequently used terms when describing physical phenomenon.Inertia: The most important concept in all of physics. It is shameful to reduce inertia into a simple description of a mass resisting acceleration. It leads one to ask; why mass? Why acceleration? What is being resisted? What is doing the resisting? These answers are complex and sometimes quite convoluted but the concept yet remains simple. Inertia is the influencing action that mediates all force interactions. If a body had no inertia, it simply could and would not interact with anything else around it; it might as well not exist at all. For something to experience a resistance, it must be trading some dimensionality. Anything that changes direction or speed in space must do so at some rate of exchange for which inertia is responsible. Electromagnetic forces, gravitationally caused forces, strong and weak nuclear forces, all these interactions are mediated by inertia. Many past and present scientific minds have combined the attribute of inertia with the concept of mass. It is more intellectually rigorous to use these terms in their proper place and not doing so has muddied the definitions for the most fundamental concepts in science. To experience a force, a body must have some amount of inertia. What carries and mediates inertia? Invariant mass, like an atomic nucleon, has a stable base inertial value. Relativistic mass is a perceived increase in the inertia of an invariant mass due to charge interactions and Relativity effects. Electromagnetic mass is the inertial influence of the aether. If a photon had no inertial properties then it would not be emitted or absorbed by atoms. Depending on your particular view point, either the aether has inertia and is capable of transferring energy between bodies, or a photon is a creation of a new particle that is endowed with inertial properties traveling through spacetime with both particle and wavelike behavior. While both models may work, one is perhaps more accurate to reality than the other. We know that vacuum free space can store energy and has non-zero electric permittivity, magnetic permeability, and characteristic impedance properties.Mass: A body containing inertia. May or may not contain matter. Has the SI unit of kilogram.Matter: Science is still trying to work this out.Particle: The smallest form of a particular type of matter. It seems that many people have accepted the idea that not all particles contain invariant mass. In order to give real meaning to the concept of matter you would need to reduce the scope of the definition of particle to only include invariant mass types.Energy: There is much to say about energy as it is a useful metric for describing and predicting many types of interaction potential. The SI base units for energy are kg*m^2/s^2. The kilogram represents inertia of any form; this describes energy as being able to interact in the real world to mediate forces. The square meter per square second can represent multiple things. Einstein saw this as velocity squared and thought it would be interesting to consider the speed of light in vacuum as this velocity constant and what those implications would be. As a result, both invariant kinetic energy and electromagnetic energy are combined to double what would be a typical one half reaction to form a total reaction potential of all inertial masses involved (aka relativistic mass). includes both forms of inertial energy potentials and the manifestation of this can be found in nuclear reactions. If you were to consider the spatial dimensions of energy, you would see that it could represent a surface area of inertia that diminishes exponentially with time. It could also represent a single line of inertia describing two opposing velocities. It is particularly important to recognize that energy incorporates two velocities in this view, so a single velocity, as with a body traveling through space unobstructed, has no energy, only the potential of energy relative to some observer. This is to say that kinetic energy is relativistic based on the observer and not a fundamental quantity. Energy does not have volume but because it has inertia it has a spatial relationship to bodies of invariant mass. This means you can point at something and say it contains energy or that energy is contained in a particular region. The dimensional units do not define the geometry, but the velocity squared term may actually be a cross product in some instances. The result of this is something that could look like a spiral that tappers on the end. This has resemblance to the path some particles may take through a cloud chamber. Now consider the geometric energy of light; it has a roundish, flat area of inertia that diminishes with time. Because the aether defines space and time and the speed of light represents the time portion of the aether, the s^2 term is not merely a function of time as we would normally perceive it changing in a locality of space, instead it behaves more as a relativistic distance. The ramifications of this is that for light to contain energy it must be in constant motion with itself. So a naked photon cannot remain motionless in the aether. This also implies that the base static aether gradient or gravitational field surrounding an invariant mass does not contain energy. If this field surrounding the invariant mass were in constant motion with respect to itself, as if it were holding onto a trapped photon, then it would contain energy. This is to say that what we perceive as electric charge is the electromotive energy surrounding an invariant mass.References: wikipedia.org

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2022, 08:29:12 pm
content: One thing he missed out in his theory of time and space and relativity, is something that makes it very clearhe was never gonna score like you and me.He didn't know about Quark, Strangeness and Charm,

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2022, 06:18:52 am
content: Who’s gonna read this? ^ It’s the definition of “wall of text”, except in this case the wall is the Great Wall of China!

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2022, 06:29:34 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on November 28, 2022, 08:29:12 pmThe album, or the track..?

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2022, 06:40:07 am
content: Quote from: kevin original on November 28, 2022, 08:14:13 pmThat pretty much pins it.

author: kevin original
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2022, 04:12:26 pm
content: Wikipedia is great but the definitions for a lot of the basic physics concepts use circular logic. Electric charge for example is the property by which a material experiences a force when placed in an EM field. An EM field is a mathematical description for what is created when electric charges are accelerated. A single electric charge has the value of 1/1.6E19 of 1.6E19 units of electric charge.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2022, 04:17:03 pm
content: That's nothing to do with Wikipedia. That's just the SI definition of the electric charge.

author: kevin original
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2022, 06:31:45 am
content: What gets me is that the Coulomb is not considered an SI base unit, instead the Ampere is the base unit and the Coulomb is a derived unit from the Ampere being Amps times seconds. Shows how much faith they have in their own definitions. If you were doing a dimensional analysis and using Ampere in place of Coulomb then you wouldn't realize there is a hidden second dimension in there screwing with your intuition.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 30, 2022, 06:58:01 am
content: What? EM fields ARE by nature circular in function often depicted as two creatures consuming each other. One will create the other, which then creates (more) of the first, in perpetuity, although diminishes as spreads outward,...forever in theory.

author: kevin original
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 01:03:38 am
content: I'm now questioning the legitimacy of the aether after realizing the significance of epsilon naught times mu naught times speed of light squared. These constants when multiplied equal the value of 1 and cancel out any dimentionality in the process. This means that the characteristic impedance of free space vacuum is merely a ratio based on arbitrarily defined numbers. In other words, free space impedance as well as permeability and permittivity do not define any inherent properties of free space itself but are only defining a relationship with respect to the speed of light. 377 ohms is not a property of the aether as I previously thought, just a dumb number. mu*c = 1/ep*c is only saying 377 = 1/0.00265 or 1 = 1. My whole aether argument was backed by the idea of the aether having attributes of impedance, permittivity, and permeability, if these values do not hold meaning on their own besides being conversion constants then I cannot claim they are attributes of free space and thus the aether.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 03:37:26 am
content: High school level physics response:Both SR and GR have been tested experimentally zillion times, and except of GR at large scales (galaxy scale and up, where introduction of dark matter and dark energy are needed to keep GR consistent with the observations), both theories held very well.On the other hand, aether conjectures did not agree with experimental data. Nobody managed to detect motion through the aether, and aether theory fails to explain time dilation phenomenon.Undergraduate physics response:All known elementary particles are simply disturbances in quantum fields, according to quantum field theory, which has been tested to unprecedented level of accuracy. There are 17 quantum fields: photon field, electron field, 6 quark fields, etc.Consider the photon field to be your “aether” field

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 07:01:02 pm
content: Quote from: kevin original on December 06, 2022, 01:03:38 amEinstein did have a half good idea -- he said that the speed of light was slower near mass. Proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).That also infers that the description "free space" is no longer good enuff -- no longer good enuff for non em physics -- but also not good enuff for em physics -- the description has to be "free space not near mass".

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 07:03:10 pm
content: Quote from: vad on December 06, 2022, 03:37:26 amEvery proper MMX has found an aetherwind.The best MMX was by V V Demjanov -- in 1968-72. Google.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 08:04:27 pm
content: Some good thinking in there. The only theory addressing most of your questions is my own theory of relativity etc. The best way for me to address some of your wrongs is to describe what i say is my corrects. I might do that later -- but for now i merely need to point out that every proper MMX ever done has measured the aetherwind.This immediately derails STR & most of GTR.And i can add that there is no such thing as time -- except that we have the present instant, & this instant is universal (ie everywhere in our eternal infinite universe)[but dont heckle me re my use of the time-word eternal].

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2022, 08:45:12 pm
content: Aetherist defines a "good" MMX result as one that agrees with his beliefs.There are other well-done MMX results that disagree with him.https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.020401https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjx58LK7eX7AhUBh3IEHU4OCGE4ChAWegQILhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcab.unime.it%2Fjournals%2Findex.php%2FAAPP%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2FAAPP.96S1A2%2FAAPP96S1A2&usg=AOvVaw1NvlUM_r5WZySD0tkfHvMj

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2022, 03:17:01 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on December 06, 2022, 08:45:12 pmWe have been throo this before. I have pointed out that Prof Reg Cahill has found the proper calibration for standard MMXs, & his calibration tells us that vacuum-mode MMXs give a null result for the aetherwind (at least they do for the standard 2nd order kind of measurements) -- MMXs have to be in gas-mode -- hence all very modern MMXs (ie the ones u always refer to) fail.However, modern MMXs are so accurate that they have in fact measured the aetherwind at 3rd order scales.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2022, 04:19:08 am
content: Quote from: aetherist on December 07, 2022, 03:17:01 amI find the claim that MMX must be done in a gas atmosphere interesting, since the most precise ones have been done in vacuum. Apparently, a VacIon pump removes the aether from the experiment.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2022, 09:00:59 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on December 07, 2022, 04:19:08 amThe most precise MMX ever was Demjanov's -- which was actually in twin media (carbon bisulphide gas & air).Vacuum mode MMXs are a good test of Lorentz length contraction only (unless they are accurate enuff to measure 3rd order effects)(which the modern MMXs can do).In gas mode the (very small) MMX reading is due to the additional action of (a) Fresnel Drag (kind of effect) slowing the speed of light in one leg & fasting it in the other.I am the world authority on some aspects of oldendays MMXs.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 07, 2022, 01:53:37 pm
content: VacIonTMpumps are less efficient in pumping chemically inert gases (e.g., argon and helium)--perhaps the aether is too inert to be pumped?

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2022, 08:41:32 pm
content: Quote from: kevin original on November 30, 2022, 06:31:45 amU should google Ivor Catt re his electricity theory.Allso Forrest Bishop.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 08, 2022, 10:00:52 pm
content: SI is an international convention to define units of measure.Physics makes use of SI units, but the fundamental axioms and theorems are defined by SI.Because the results are more repeatable than the obvious definition, the meter is now defined by SI in terms of a defined value for speed of light in vacuum and the second in terms of a cesium transition.Before this change, the meter was defined in terms of an optical-transition wavelength, and the speed of light was to be measured.Again, the important thing about changes in SI unit definitions is to progress towards more repeatable calibrations in different laboratories.

author: kevin original
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2022, 05:51:57 pm
content: Welp, turns out the magnetic field isn't real. I just learned/realized/allowedmyselftoaccept that magnetism is a mathematical field because the true source is relativistic activity from changing electric field. At least the electric field is physical/real for now? It annoyingly vindicates Ken Wheeler's single dielectric field theory. Ken would probably have some good ideas if only he knew what he was talking about. I can't really blame him considering Eric Dollard is his source of electrical theory. I'm passive aggressively stirring the pot in case there are any Ken/Eric fans out there. Their ideas and terminology may be wrong but you can't blame a guy for starting with a logical conceptual explanation and then working from there. The thing is, you shouldn't just dismiss Einstein and the current scientific thought out of spite. Another guy I found uses the youtube handle "ask us whatever". I like that he actually uses the math to justify his views. I agree that length contraction doesn't make any real sense but he has some other misconceptions out of the gate that I don't agree with. I agree that the speed of light changes, but only in a gravitational field or conductor of light/electricity but not in a vacuum.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2022, 06:00:06 pm
content: Light propagates through an optical fiber, or through a pipe filled with gas at a slower speed than in vacuum.The speed ratio is called the "optical index", or "index of refraction", and is used in lens design.This is well-documented, understood, and exploited in technology.'What is "real"?', said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer. The magnetic force between two conductors carrying current is measurable and palpable.This is a usual starting point for the discussion of magnetic fields in physics.

author: kevin original
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2022, 06:32:01 pm
content: Quote from: aetherist on December 08, 2022, 08:41:32 pmI briefly looked up these two. I can't say I'm convinced about the trapped wave idea between plates of a capacitor, surly it would cause excess heating and energy dissipation in the capacitor over time? I like the idea that the TEM wave takes 2 steps forward and 1 step back in a transmission line but I have a cognitive bias justifying the slowing of light rather than just moving it back and forth quickly. Thanks for the ideas.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2022, 06:52:19 pm
content: Fields:In classical mechanics, a field is a mathematical description of the force exerted on a test object as a function of position, etc.The gravitational field gives the force on a mass.The electric (electrostatic) field gives the force on a charge.The magnetic field gives the force on a current.In all these cases, the forces are real and can be both measured and sensed.The fields calculated by the usual physical equations agree with experience in the range where classical physics is appropriate.The reason why magnetic fields are far more important in electrical machinery (motors, etc.) than are electric fields is that you can use the same current over and over by running it through a coil.

author: aetherist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2022, 07:37:27 pm
content: Quote from: kevin original on December 09, 2022, 05:51:57 pmLength Contraction due to velocity of aetherwind is a certainty. Except it might involve a Width Dilation. Or, a combination of LC & WD (Lorentz). We cant be sure.Time Dilation -- there aint no such thing. But we will have changes of ticking of all processes due to change in aetherwind.