Notices
Results 1 to 97 of 97
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By MeteorWayne
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: The physical nature of mass

  1. #1 The physical nature of mass 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    What is the physical dimensionality of mass? As I understand it, conventional science effectively says that mass is an abstract statistical point (it has no length, nor any duration). Is there any experimental evidence that suggests mass is in fact such a spaceless and timeless point? It seems to me that there is no such evidence and that the notion of point-mass is merely a metaphysical sleight-of-hand used by statisticians.

    My contention is that mass is, physically, an inertial and gravitational wavelength. I acquired this idea from my study of aetherometry, and it seems far more consistent and useful than the conventional treatment of mass.

    I am curious whether there are any other theorists that treat mass as a physical wavelength? Or, again, if there is any compelling reason to actually accept the concept of point-mass?

    For those unfamiliar with aetherometry, their suggestion is that mass-equivalent wavelength in meters is equal to 10x Avogadro's number times mass in kilograms, such that atomic mass units are equivalent to centimeters (so, in a proton, there is ~1cm of mass coiled up into a tiny torus - no probability waves, only actual electric and magnetic waves coupled to that 1cm mass). This approach allows for consistent treatment of everything from gravitational force to the CBR to atomic emission lines, without resorting to hopelessly metaphysical concepts like point-mass (or point-charge, etc).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    None of what you have written means anything to me. Show me how you would calculate the trajectory of a projectile, or results of an inelastic collision, using aetherometry instead of conventional concepts of mass.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    What is the physical dimensionality of mass?
    Mass is a fundamental unit (dimension). It is not measured in length or time. Your question is like asking what flavor F# is, or what the color red smells like.

    As I understand it, conventional science effectively says that mass is an abstract statistical point (it has no length, nor any duration).
    I don't think science says anything like that. Where did you get that idea from?

    Is there any experimental evidence that suggests mass is in fact such a spaceless and timeless point? It seems to me that there is no such evidence and that the notion of point-mass is merely a metaphysical sleight-of-hand used by statisticians.
    Sounds more like something you misunderstood or made up.

    My contention is that mass is, physically, an inertial and gravitational wavelength.
    My contention is that green is, physically, a toothpaste-flavored and angry piano.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I am curious whether there are any other theorists that treat mass as a physical wavelength?
    None that I know of, mainly because theory works so well in treating masses as we presently do.

    Or, again, if there is any compelling reason to actually accept the concept of point-mass?
    Only that experiments show that some particles (such as the electron) behave as point masses (current upper limit on radius is of the order of a tenth of a zeptometer or, if you prefer, 100 yoctometers or so).

    For those unfamiliar with aetherometry, their suggestion is that mass-equivalent wavelength in meters is equal to 10x Avogadro's number times mass in kilograms, such that atomic mass units are equivalent to centimeters (so, in a proton, there is ~1cm of mass coiled up into a tiny torus - no probability waves, only actual electric and magnetic waves coupled to that 1cm mass). This approach allows for consistent treatment of everything from gravitational force to the CBR to atomic emission lines, without resorting to hopelessly metaphysical concepts like point-mass (or point-charge, etc).
    Most physicists I know don't think of point masses as metaphysical. They think of such entities as useful abstractions or approximations, such as the ever-elusive frictionless plane. Those who wish to go beyond such abstractions abound -- look at string theorists.

    You propose to replace these approximations with something that you can't even articulate well. I see no advance here. Can you provide an example? I mean, show us something that you can predict that normal theory can't, for example, and provide that testable prediction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    As I understand it, conventional science effectively says that mass is an abstract statistical point (it has no length, nor any duration)
    You understand it wrong.
    The rest of the post is thus meaningless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Ives-Stilwell experiment 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Hi guys, thanks for your replies.

    The ability to think clearly and to communicate clearly are two different skills. I hope to improve on the latter through participation in this forum, if you will lend me your ear.

    We are basically talking about different interpretations of data. You have found an interpretation that works for you, and that is wonderful. I have found another interpretation that seems to work equally well, and in my view presents certain advantages, which may not be apparent to you yet - such as a vast simplification of measurement units: instead of the dozens of SI units, we need only meters and seconds.

    Mainstream science does see mass as its own fundamental dimension, and I did not state that clearly in the OP. I am sorry for the omission. But mainstream science does ask us to conceptualize in terms of a point-mass (so it seems to me), which is only ever localized through a collapse of probability waves - some of you disagree with my choice of words, though tk421 gets what I was driving at. I see anything that does not 'take up' any space or time as hopelessly abstract and 'metaphysical', but perhaps this is just a personal eccentricity; at any rate it's not the essential point, and I'll drop it. You say mass is its own fundamental dimension, irreducible to either space or time; I suggest that it may very well turn out to be a wavelength (measured in meters, not angry pianos, of any flavor).

    Harold and tk421 asked for two different kinds of examples - I'd like to take up Harold's request first. An example involving collisional particle dynamics.

    The Ives-Stilwell experiment of 1938 was touted as a decisive win for Relativity over the classical model, and as 'proof' of time-dilation. The experiment involves the acceleration and collision of positive and negative ions, which form Hydrogen atoms and emit the typical Balmer lines, whose Doppler shifts are measured.

    First, some basics; with mass-equivalent wavelength as defined in the OP, the mass of the electron can be given in meters as 9.1094x10-31 kg * 10 NA * m mol kg-1 = 5.4858x10-6 m. Since E=mc2, we can derive the total mass-energy (rest energy) of the electron (511 keV) as 5.4858x10-6 m * c2 = 4.9304x1011 m3/s2. Using the aetherometric model of the electron (where e is given by the product of electron mass and the electron's magnetic wavespeed Wk = c * 0.1 alpha0.5), we can also derive the value of both the elementary charge (5.4858x10-6 m * c * 0.1 alpha0.5 = 13.970 m2/s) and the volt ([4.9304x1011 m3/s2 * 1 eV]/[510,999 eV * 13.97 m2/s] = 69,065 m/s). The last two might seem like a bit of a leap at the moment, but to avoid sidetracking, let's move on.

    In the original IS experiment, positive ions (primarily proton doublets) are accelerated across a voltage gradient, into a chamber where they collide with electrons, which are also undergoing acceleration in the opposite direction, towards the proton doublets. The collision produces a typical H spectral emission (Balmer emission lines). What is measured in this experiment is the frequency differential between the forward-moving EM emission and the backwards-moving emission reflected off a mirror at the back of the chamber. So the apparatus measures (indirectly) the velocity of H atoms upon collision of proton doublets and electrons, by providing visibility into the resulting first- and second-order Doppler shifts of light.

    Let's take a concrete example. One of the data sets reported by Ives and Stilwell employed a voltage of 7,780 V, equivalent to an electric wavespeed of 5.3733x108 m/s (see above). According to aetherometric theory, massbound charges accelerated by an electric field will attain a velocity equal to the geometric mean of the electric wavespeed of the applied field and the internal magnetic wavespeed of the material particle. In our present example, with an applied field voltage of 7,780 V, electrons will attain a predicted velocity of 3.6991x107 m/s, and protons - whose magnetic wavespeed is 1836 times slower than that of the electron - will attain a predicted velocity of 8.6329x105 m/s, proton doublets attaining the same velocity. Upon collision of the proton doublets and electrons, and the resultant formation of atomic hydrogen and Balmer line emission, the velocity of the H atoms will be equal to the proton velocity minus 1/3672 of the electron velocity, or 8.5323x105 m/s.

    From here, knowing the predicted velocity of the emitting particle (based only on the applied voltage and simple geometric composition of velocities), we can calculate the predicted first-order Doppler shifts, with the forward Doppler shift equal to ([1+v/c]/[1-v/c])0.5 = 1.00285 and the reverse Doppler shift equal to ([1-v/c]/[1+v/c])0.5 = 0.99716. Finally, the predicted second-order Doppler shift can be calculated as (1.00285 - 1) - (1 - 0.99716) = 8.1002x10-6. This is within about 3.8% of the observed value, while the value predicted by SR is within about 8.4% of observations. If we repeat the above using the other voltages employed by Ives and Stilwell, and take an average of the results, aetherometric predictions deviate from experimental results by ~2.0%, while SR predictions deviate by ~4.8%.

    Simpler measurement units; simpler equations and concepts (no time dilation or Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations); more accurate predictions (than either SR or LLR).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    One of the data sets reported by Ives and Stilwell employed a voltage of 7,780 V, equivalent to an electric wavespeed of 5.3733x108 m/s (see above)
    Electric wave speed. Of course. How could we have missed that.

    But mainstream science does ask us to conceptualize in terms of a point-mass (so it seems to me),
    That's because elementary particles do appear point-like in present day experiments. Mainstream science does, however, also consider other possibilities - see String theory.

    Mainstream science does see mass as its own fundamental dimension,
    No it doesn't. What does that even mean ? Mass is just a property of elementary particles, which comes about through its interaction with the underlying Higgs field.

    Since E=mc2, we can derive the total mass-energy (rest energy) of the electron
    My strong impression was that you reject relativity. So why are you using its relations ?

    This is within about 3.8% of the observed value, while the value predicted by SR is within about 8.4% of observations.
    I wonder where you get those numbers from. I refer here :

    ^Reinhardt, S.; Saathoff, G.; Buhr, H.; Carlson, L. A.; Wolf, A.; Schwalm, D.; Karpuk, S.; Novotny, C.; Huber, G.; Zimmermann, M.; Holzwarth, R.; Udem, T.; Hnsch, T. W.; Gwinner, G. (2007). "Test of relativistic time dilation with fast optical atomic clocks at different velocities". Nature Physics3 (12): 861–864. Bibcode 2007NatPh...3..861R.DOI:10.1038/nphys778.

    Using special relativity, the experiments show a deviation of less than 8.4*10^-8 from the values predicted by the theory.

    Simpler measurement units; simpler equations and concepts (no time dilation or Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations); more accurate predictions (than either SR or LLR).
    Now we come to the crux of the matter - you reject relativity. Am I right or wrong ? A clear yes or no will suffice here.
    You are aware of course that the measurement you referenced is from 1938 ? Modern day measurements of this effect have deviations of around 1%, which is well within standard error rates of the setups used.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; July 29th, 2012 at 09:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    And here is another one, with a standard deviation against theory of about 1.1% :

    ^Kndig, Walter (1963). "Measurement of the Transverse Doppler Effect in an Accelerated System". Physical Review129 (6): 23712375. DOI:10.1103/PhysRev.129.2371.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So I take it you are a proponent of this :

    Aetherometry - Encyclopedia Nomadica
    What is Aetherometry - David Icke's Official Forums ( yes, we know the gentleman well )
    Aetherometric Technologies

    My contention is that mass is, physically, an inertial and gravitational wavelength.
    Ok then, so how many meters do you weigh...?
    And how many meters/second of voltage do you get out of your power points at home ?

    What a load of hogwash ! I might just as well postulate the pink unicorn as the basic unit of fundamental constants in the universe, and tweak everything else accordingly with a little bit of arithmetic.
    Complete waste of time. And the involvement of David Icke in this pretty much says it all.

    Such a thing as "aether" does not exist, that is all there is to it. The concept was abandoned by mainstream science a century ago, and for very good reasons, so I suggest you wise up and not become another sad statistic on this forum, since there is only one way all the various aether threads ( and we have had many of them, even during my short time here ) went...

    The reader should refer here :

    Aetherometry: Fact or Fiction - The Opinion Wiki
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; July 29th, 2012 at 09:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Aetherometry, the exact science of the metrics of massfree energy (Aether), is a novel biophysical and nanometric science, or scientific discipline, developed by Dr. Paulo N. Correa and Alexandra N. Correa as a synthesis of experimental and analytical work that replicated, revised and continued the scientific contributions of Nikola Tesla, Louis de Broglie, Wilhelm Reich (orgonomy, orgonometry), Ren Thom (catastrophe theory) and Harold Aspden. Its object of study is massfree energy.
    Massfree energy

    Massfree energy is energy devoid of inertia; it is everywhere 'present in space' or associated with various states of motion of material particles or bodies. In a wide sense, massfree energy encompasses Aether manifestations, as well as photon and kinetic energy states. The primordial or Aether manifestations of massfree energy include graviton and antigraviton states affected to matter or its particles, and, more profoundly, the cosmological manifestations of dark energy, in both electric and nonelectric forms, which are associated with the cosmological creation of material particles.
    Just another Aether theory. Nothing to see here, move along.

    Interestingly, Aetherometry may be the only thing on earth not to have a wiki entry.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Interestingly, Aetherometry may be the only thing on earth not to have a wiki entry.
    And for good reason. The entire concept is just so ridiculous that no one will waste his/her time to create a Wiki article about it.
    I would still like to know how many meters the author of the OP weighs...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    One of the data sets reported by Ives and Stilwell employed a voltage of 7,780 V, equivalent to an electric wavespeed of 5.3733x108 m/s (see above)
    Electric wave speed. Of course. How could we have missed that.
    Probably because you have not bothered to think it through. If mass is a wavelength (the overriding hypothesis of this thread, which is posted in "New Hypotheses and Ideas"), and energy has dimensionality L3/T2 (length cubed over time squared) and charge has dimensionality L2/T, then voltage has the dimensionality of velocity, L/T. So, according to this hypothesis, voltage is a wavespeed and can be expressed in meters per second. This follows inevitably from the treatment of mass as a wavelength, I hope you can see this. This is very basic dimensional analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    But mainstream science does ask us to conceptualize in terms of a point-mass (so it seems to me),
    That's because elementary particles do appear point-like in present day experiments. Mainstream science does, however, also consider other possibilities - see String theory.
    I would say that it is because elementary particles are interpreted as point-like. It is a statistical convention, no one has directly observed a point-mass, nor, I suspect, could they.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Mainstream science does see mass as its own fundamental dimension,
    No it doesn't. What does that even mean ? Mass is just a property of elementary particles, which comes about through its interaction with the underlying Higgs field.
    My Gods, do we really have to go back to basic dimensional analysis? You should have learned this in high school. Velocity has the dimensionality of space over time; force has the dimensionality of mass times acceleration, or, aetherometrically, length squared over time squared. And so on. Mainstream science proposes that mass is different from either space or time - a different type of measurable dimension - and that it requires its own measurement unit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Since E=mc2, we can derive the total mass-energy (rest energy) of the electron
    My strong impression was that you reject relativity. So why are you using its relations ?
    I don't reject all of the concepts and findings of Relativity, however I do find some of its foundational assumptions to be deeply flawed. Its concept of spacetime, for one; its conceptualization of mass, for another. E=mc2 was not originally a relativistic equation, nor was it coined by Einstein. It appears to be a true functional relation, and so I use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    This is within about 3.8% of the observed value, while the value predicted by SR is within about 8.4% of observations.
    I wonder where you get those numbers from. I refer here :

    ^Reinhardt, S.; Saathoff, G.; Buhr, H.; Carlson, L. A.; Wolf, A.; Schwalm, D.; Karpuk, S.; Novotny, C.; Huber, G.; Zimmermann, M.; Holzwarth, R.; Udem, T.; Hnsch, T. W.; Gwinner, G. (2007). "Test of relativistic time dilation with fast optical atomic clocks at different velocities". Nature Physics3 (12): 861864. Bibcode 2007NatPh...3..861R.DOI:10.1038/nphys778.

    Using special relativity, the experiments show a deviation of less than 8.4*10^-8 from the values predicted by the theory.

    I should have posted my reference, the paper AS3-1.4 available on this page free of charge: Abstracts - Interferometric Aetherometry. The reason that the 1938 results are employed is because more recent versions of the experiment attempt to eliminate the collisional dynamics that were present in the original, thus they are effectively different experiments, and require a different analysis. Refer to 'Death by Peer Review' available at the same link as above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    Simpler measurement units; simpler equations and concepts (no time dilation or Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations); more accurate predictions (than either SR or LLR).
    Now we come to the crux of the matter - you reject relativity. Am I right or wrong ? A clear yes or no will suffice here.
    You are aware of course that the measurement you referenced is from 1938 ? Modern day measurements of this effect have deviations of around 1%, which is well within standard error rates of the setups used.
    Not all of relativity is wrong, but yes, as stated above, I reject some of its fundamental assumptions (and they are assumptions).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    So I take it you are a proponent of this :

    Aetherometry - Encyclopedia Nomadica
    What is Aetherometry - David Icke's Official Forums ( yes, we know the gentleman well )
    Aetherometric Technologies
    It is the best and most consistent scientific theory I've found so far, yes, though I continue to inquire and to seek more adequate interpretations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    My contention is that mass is, physically, an inertial and gravitational wavelength.
    Ok then, so how many meters do you weigh...?
    You do realize that weight is different than mass, don't you? Again, I suggest you return to high-school dimensional analysis. But if you are asking about the mass of my body,

    65kg * 10 NA * m mol kg-1 = 3.9x1026 m
    Note that this does not change the fact that the Bohr radii of atoms are more or less accurate. The mass is coiled up into all the individual atoms constituting my body at any given moment. You get a sense of the incredible density of matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    And how many meters/second of voltage do you get out of your power points at home ?
    120V * 69065 m/s V-1 = 8.3x106 m/s
    Note this is the wavespeed intrinsic to the electric field associated with the flux of material particles, not the velocity of the material particles moving through the wire.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What a load of hogwash ! I might just as well postulate the pink unicorn as the basic unit of fundamental constants in the universe, and tweak everything else accordingly with a little bit of arithmetic.
    Complete waste of time. And the involvement of David Icke in this pretty much says it all.
    What is David Icke's involvement? I am not aware of any.
    I have not postulated any new dimensions, I'm using meters and seconds which you should be familiar with, as they are our accepted measures of SPACE and TIME. I am not sure why you guys are bringing in pink unicorns and angry pianos. Existence is spatial and temporal, in my experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Such a thing as "aether" does not exist, that is all there is to it. The concept was abandoned by mainstream science a century ago, and for very good reasons, so I suggest you wise up and not become another sad statistic on this forum, since there is only one way all the various aether threads ( and we have had many of them, even during my short time here ) went...

    The reader should refer here :

    Aetherometry: Fact or Fiction - The Opinion Wiki
    There is nothing substantial in that link, I'm not sure what the reader will get out of it.
    Where is the evidence that massfree energy (aether) does not exist? Does matter also not exist? Are you a nihilist?
    Obviously, the lumineferous ether of the 19th Century does not exist, as it does not stand up to experiments such as the Michelson-Morley.
    However this does not rule out the possibility that massfree energy can and does exist, and that its concept is central to a consistent view of physics and biophysics.

    I would suggest that the Higgs field does not exist, and yet you talk about it as if it does. Again we are back to differences in interpretation, and the concepts that we invent in order to make sense of the world around and within us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    If mass is a wavelength (the overriding hypothesis of this thread, which is posted in "New Hypotheses and Ideas"), and energy has dimensionality L3/T2 (length cubed over time squared) and charge has dimensionality L2/T, then voltage has the dimensionality of velocity, L/T. So, according to this hypothesis, voltage is a wavespeed and can be expressed in meters per second. This follows inevitably from the treatment of mass as a wavelength, I hope you can see this. This is very basic dimensional analysis.
    If length is a pink elephant, and temperature is given by unicorns over walruses cubed, and gravity is invisible rubber bands, then it inevitably follows that pi equals apple.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Interestingly, Aetherometry may be the only thing on earth not to have a wiki entry.
    And for good reason. The entire concept is just so ridiculous that no one will waste his/her time to create a Wiki article about it.
    I would still like to know how many meters the author of the OP weighs...
    Actually their entire saga with Wikipedia is fairly well-documented:

    http://aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
    http://aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia2/awp2_index.html

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Probably because you have not bothered to think it through. If mass is a wavelength
    The operative here being the word "if".
    But it is not. Mass is not wavelength. The entire hypothesis is meaningless.

    This follows inevitably from the treatment of mass as a wavelength
    Once again - mass is not wavelength. The rest mass of a particle is a result of the Higgs mechanism, and has nothing to do with waves or wavelength.

    I would say that it is because elementary particles are interpreted as point-like. It is a statistical convention, no one has directly observed a point-mass, nor, I suspect, could they.
    It's really the other way around - they are treated as point-like because that is how they appear in particle accelerator scattering processes - as point-like entities without internal structure. It is not just a convention, there is just no evidence that they posses any spatial structure at all.

    I don't reject all of the concepts and findings of Relativity, however I do find some of its foundational assumptions to be deeply flawed.
    There is a term for this : cherry picking.
    Within relativity, just like in most other theories, everything is interrelated - you can't agree with some concepts while rejecting others. It just doesn't work.
    So then - what is it you agree with, and what is it that you reject ? Let's hear it.

    Its concept of spacetime, for one; its conceptualization of mass, for another.
    Right, so that is really all of relativity, after all. What parts do you agree with, then ?

    I should have posted my reference, the paper AS3-1.4 available on this page free of charge: Abstracts - Interferometric Aetherometry.
    I thought so.
    Here's the thing - aether does not exist.

    The reason that the 1938 results are employed is because more recent versions of the experiment attempt to eliminate the collisional dynamics that were present in the original, thus they are effectively different experiments, and require a different analysis.
    Analyse it, then.

    Not all of relativity is wrong, but yes, as stated above, I reject some of its fundamental assumptions (and they are assumptions).
    What 'assumptions' is it that you are referring to ? And what do you consider to be 'not wrong' about relativity ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    If mass is a wavelength (the overriding hypothesis of this thread, which is posted in "New Hypotheses and Ideas"), and energy has dimensionality L3/T2 (length cubed over time squared) and charge has dimensionality L2/T, then voltage has the dimensionality of velocity, L/T. So, according to this hypothesis, voltage is a wavespeed and can be expressed in meters per second. This follows inevitably from the treatment of mass as a wavelength, I hope you can see this. This is very basic dimensional analysis.
    If length is a pink elephant, and temperature is given by unicorns over walruses cubed, and gravity is invisible rubber bands, then it inevitably follows that pi equals apple.
    All you have demonstrated is your inability or unwillingness to think clearly in terms of space and time. Maybe you consider dimensional analysis boring and prefer coloring books. But then why are you frequenting a science forum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    What is David Icke's involvement? I am not aware of any.
    That's just bizarre.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    If mass is a wavelength (the overriding hypothesis of this thread, which is posted in "New Hypotheses and Ideas"), and energy has dimensionality L3/T2 (length cubed over time squared) and charge has dimensionality L2/T, then voltage has the dimensionality of velocity, L/T. So, according to this hypothesis, voltage is a wavespeed and can be expressed in meters per second. This follows inevitably from the treatment of mass as a wavelength, I hope you can see this. This is very basic dimensional analysis.
    If length is a pink elephant, and temperature is given by unicorns over walruses cubed, and gravity is invisible rubber bands, then it inevitably follows that pi equals apple.
    All you have demonstrated is your inability or unwillingness to think clearly in terms of space and time. Maybe you consider dimensional analysis boring and prefer coloring books. But then why are you frequenting a science forum?
    I guess you lack the humor gene, specifically the SRS (satire-recognition sequence) on chromosome 19. Had you possessed it, you'd have known that AlexG was parodying your equally information-rich supposition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    It is the best and most consistent scientific theory I've found so far
    The most diplomatic thing I can think of saying to this is : keep searching.

    65kg * 10 NA * m mol kg-1 = 3.9x1026 m
    So now we know your mass in meters. Not only is this completely meaningless, but I fail to see the point as well. What's wrong with conventional units, in your opinion ?

    Note that this does not change the fact that the Bohr radii of atoms are more or less accurate.
    No one asked about the Bohr radius of atoms ?! What does that have to do with the topic ?

    What is David Icke's involvement? I am not aware of any.
    Check my previous links.

    I'm using meters and seconds which you should be familiar with, as they are our accepted measures of SPACE and TIME
    Yes, but you are applying it to mass, which is definitely not accepted practice.

    Where is the evidence that massfree energy (aether) does not exist?
    You are getting this the wrong way around, just like all the other aether proponents always do. Aether is not part of any mainstream theory of physics, and thus the onus is on you to prove that it does exist, and not on us to prove you wrong.
    Otherwise I could say : there is no evidence that electrons are not in fact pink unicorns, so I claim they are pink unicorns ! Now you must prove me wrong !
    Do you see the problem here ?

    There is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as aether does exist.

    I would suggest that the Higgs field does not exist,
    Actually, we are about 95% sure that it really does exist. Or have you missed this :

    The Higgs boson discovery is another giant leap for humankind | Themis Bowcock | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

    Final confirmation to follow by 2013.

    Again we are back to differences in interpretation, and the concepts that we invent in order to make sense of the world around and within us.
    Err, no. See above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    All you have demonstrated is your inability or unwillingness to think clearly in terms of space and time. Maybe you consider dimensional analysis boring and prefer coloring books. But then why are you frequenting a science forum?
    Did you listen ? Your so-called 'dimensional analysis' is based on the assumption that mass can be measured in wave length. What we are telling you is that this assumption is wrong - you can do no such thing. Therefore everything else that follows is just meaningless nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Again, I suggest you return to high-school dimensional analysis.
    A-huh. All of 6 posts under your belt, and already you have been alleging that two members of this forum do not understand basic physics.
    I think you are going to have a brilliant future here...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Probably because you have not bothered to think it through. If mass is a wavelength
    The operative here being the word "if".
    But it is not. Mass is not wavelength. The entire hypothesis is meaningless.
    And that is why? Because you say so? Are you God? You have not even considered the hypothesis and are already convinced it is false. Isn't this the antithesis of all science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    This follows inevitably from the treatment of mass as a wavelength
    Once again - mass is not wavelength. The rest mass of a particle is a result of the Higgs mechanism, and has nothing to do with waves or wavelength.
    Markus, those statements are only true within your particular belief system. You sound like a religious fanatic. No wonder they call it the God particle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I would say that it is because elementary particles are interpreted as point-like. It is a statistical convention, no one has directly observed a point-mass, nor, I suspect, could they.
    It's really the other way around - they are treated as point-like because that is how they appear in particle accelerator scattering processes - as point-like entities without internal structure. It is not just a convention, there is just no evidence that they posses any spatial structure at all.

    I don't reject all of the concepts and findings of Relativity, however I do find some of its foundational assumptions to be deeply flawed.
    There is a term for this : cherry picking.
    Within relativity, just like in most other theories, everything is interrelated - you can't agree with some concepts while rejecting others. It just doesn't work.
    So then - what is it you agree with, and what is it that you reject ? Let's hear it.

    Its concept of spacetime, for one; its conceptualization of mass, for another.
    Right, so that is really all of relativity, after all. What parts do you agree with, then ?

    I should have posted my reference, the paper AS3-1.4 available on this page free of charge: Abstracts - Interferometric Aetherometry.
    I thought so.
    Here's the thing - aether does not exist.
    Wow, it must be nice to be omniscient. Forgive me if I'm not convinced. WHICH aether does not exist, and on what grounds do you base your judgment? Practically every aether theory conceives of it in a different way. Only aetherometry (and Reich), for example, conceive of the aether as strictly massfree, as far as I know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The reason that the 1938 results are employed is because more recent versions of the experiment attempt to eliminate the collisional dynamics that were present in the original, thus they are effectively different experiments, and require a different analysis.
    Analyse it, then.
    Don't be hasty, you have not even digested my first analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Not all of relativity is wrong, but yes, as stated above, I reject some of its fundamental assumptions (and they are assumptions).
    What 'assumptions' is it that you are referring to ? And what do you consider to be 'not wrong' about relativity ?
    For example, the assumption that Minkowski spacetime actually corresponds to physical reality.

    It seems to be true that material particles cannot be accelerated faster than the speed of light - I accept this about relativity, but not its explanation (relativistic mass increase). I'm not cherry-picking, I simply have a consistent physical theory which makes better sense to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    All you have demonstrated is your inability or unwillingness to think clearly in terms of space and time. Maybe you consider dimensional analysis boring and prefer coloring books. But then why are you frequenting a science forum?
    Did you listen ? Your so-called 'dimensional analysis' is based on the assumption that mass can be measured in wave length. What we are telling you is that this assumption is wrong - you can do no such thing. Therefore everything else that follows is just meaningless nonsense.
    Please explain to me how the hypothesis is wrong, I can be dense sometimes. So far it seems to be based only on 'because Markus says so', or on 'we don't use that concept in relativistic science'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Here's the crux of the problem as I see it. You have not studied aetherometry, I have. It is the only aether theory I have found that is worthy of study. The Correas have published four full volumes (to date) of experimental evidence that the aether does exist. I cannot summarize it all in a few forum posts, we would have to go one step at a time. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to even take the first step, which would be to consider that mass may be functionally equivalent to a wavelength. You dismiss it out of hand. Aetherometry provides a consistent framework for dealing with all known physical and biophysical phenomena, something which I understand mainstream science has definitely not achieved; I have my doubts that it will ever achieve it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Please explain to me how the hypothesis is wrong, I can be dense sometimes.
    It appears you do not read all our comments. It is wrong because it is based on aetherometry, and since such a thing as aether does not exist, the entire concept is quite meaningless.
    Or do you have any evidence that aether does in fact exist ? How do you even define 'aether' ?

    You have not even considered the hypothesis and are already convinced it is false. Isn't this the antithesis of all science?
    Aether in all its various forms has been considered countless times, and eventually abandoned as a valid concept. What else do you suggest is there to consider ?

    Markus, those statements are only true within your particular belief system.
    I could say the same to you. Consider me as representing mainstream science, that's all there is to it.

    You sound like a religious fanatic.
    Had you been on science forums as long as I have, you would find this to be a favourite statement of pretty much all aether proponents, and most other crackpots as well.

    WHICH aether does not exist, and on what grounds do you base your judgment?
    I base it on the grounds of no trace of any form of aether ever having been found by anyone.
    Or do you wish to present evidence to the contrary ?

    Don't be hasty, you have not even digested my first analysis.
    And once again - aether does not exist. What is there to digest ?
    So go on now, present your analysis like I asked you to.

    I'm not cherry-picking, I simply have a consistent physical theory which makes better sense to me.
    What makes sense to you and what is physical reality might not be the same thing.
    So - do you now have evidence for the existence of aether ?

    I accept this about relativity, but not its explanation (relativistic mass increase)
    So you are rejecting the measured outcome of every single high energy collision ever performed in any particle accelerator ? Relativistic energy and momentum can be directly measured in those accelerators.
    Sounds like cherry picking to me...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    The Correas have published four full volumes (to date) of experimental evidence that the aether does exist.
    Let's see an example, with full peer reviewed references as to experimental setup, data collection, data point values, data analysis and error margin evaluations.
    Paul and Alexandra Correa are both themselves avid proponents of aetherometry, so obviously we will need to cross-check this against the results of other independent experimenters. That is how science works.

    Aetherometry provides a consistent framework for dealing with all known physical and biophysical phenomena,
    So you keep saying, without having presented any valid evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Just after noticing that the Correas not only reject all of relativity, but Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, and quantum electrodynamics as well.
    What surprise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Please explain to me how the hypothesis is wrong, I can be dense sometimes.
    It appears you do not read all our comments. It is wrong because it is based on aetherometry, and since such a thing as aether does not exist, the entire concept is quite meaningless.
    Or do you have any evidence that aether does in fact exist ? How do you even define 'aether' ?
    I do read all your comments even if I do not reply directly to each one.
    Your argument is entirely circular and I find it unconvincing. (it is wrong because it is wrong, is all you're saying)

    Experimental evidence that supports the possible existence of an aether: thermal anomalies observed in faraday cage / orac / hyborac (capable of running a sterling engine 24 hrs per day); apparent anti-gravitational action of the simple gold-leaf electroscope; the dual nature of radiation output by induction coils. We could start with those three.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I accept this about relativity, but not its explanation (relativistic mass increase)
    So you are rejecting the measured outcome of every single high energy collision ever performed in any particle accelerator ? Relativistic energy and momentum can be directly measured in those accelerators.
    Sounds like cherry picking to me...
    Nope, I stated clearly that I accept the measured outcomes, but reject the explanation offered by relativistic theory. All we know is that particles get more and more inefficient at absorbing field energy as they attain higher velocities. There is no direct evidence that this is due to an increase in mass. Unless you have some evidence to present.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    The Correas have published four full volumes (to date) of experimental evidence that the aether does exist.
    Let's see an example, with full peer reviewed references as to experimental setup, data collection, data point values, data analysis and error margin evaluations.
    Paul and Alexandra Correa are both themselves avid proponents of aetherometry, so obviously we will need to cross-check this against the results of other independent experimenters. That is how science works.

    Aetherometry provides a consistent framework for dealing with all known physical and biophysical phenomena,
    So you keep saying, without having presented any valid evidence.
    How is my summary of the aetherometric treatment of the Ives-Stilwell not valid evidence that aetherometry, at least, offers a consistent framework for dealing with low-energy particle collisions? Obviously I cannot present all the evidence at once, in a couple of forum posts. It is clear that you are extremely hesitant to make the (small) conceptual leaps required to even get out of the gate.

    I would like to refer you to the Correas' reproduction of the experiment Reich presented to Einstein.
    The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment under Limit Conditions

    And refer to 'Death by peer review' (reference above) to get a sense of how alternate physical theories are generally received by peer-review journals. Actually it is pretty much identical to your reception of me here on this forum. The Teslas and Reichs and Correas will always be minor, underground science. That is not to say that their work is any less worthy of consideration. Science should not be a popularity contest.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    What we would need to establish in order to continue is that just because a body of knowledge is not accepted by the establishment of mainstream science, does not make it a priori "wrong". Otherwise there is no point in continuing.

    This is a forum for new hypotheses and ideas. If you are not willing to consider new ideas, please don't bother replying. I have presented some experimental evidence that the aether may in fact be a useful concept in physical science (the paper on the Reich-Einstein experiment). Does mainstream science have an explanation for these thermal anomalies? Do you find fault in their experimental setup, controls or method?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    65kg * 10 NA * m mol kg-1 = 3.9x1026 m
    So now we know your mass in meters. Not only is this completely meaningless, but I fail to see the point as well. What's wrong with conventional units, in your opinion ?

    Note that this does not change the fact that the Bohr radii of atoms are more or less accurate.
    No one asked about the Bohr radius of atoms ?! What does that have to do with the topic ?
    I only wanted to emphasize that the mass-wavelength is coiled up into those atoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What is David Icke's involvement? I am not aware of any.
    Check my previous links.
    You posted a link to a forum topic on Icke's site, posted by a forum member named Cruise4, which has 0 replies. David Icke has nothing to do with Aetherometry. It seems like you're just posting random google results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    There is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as aether does exist.
    Let's focus on the Reich-Einstein experiment for now. Let me know what you make of the evidence, how you would explain the results without making recourse to an aether.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I would suggest that the Higgs field does not exist,
    Actually, we are about 95% sure that it really does exist. Or have you missed this :

    The Higgs boson discovery is another giant leap for humankind | Themis Bowcock | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

    Final confirmation to follow by 2013.
    Just because particle physicists have detected an energetic resonance at around 125GeV does not mean that the Higgs field exists. We are back to interpretation of data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    65kg * 10 NA * m mol kg-1 = 3.9x1026 m
    So now we know your mass in meters. Not only is this completely meaningless, but I fail to see the point as well. What's wrong with conventional units, in your opinion ?
    Obviously, in isolation, it has no meaning whatsoever. It only has meaning within the corpus of aethorometric thought. For example, we could calculate the gravitational energy associated to that mass (4.3x10-9 m3/s2) or its weight in the Earth's gravitational field (3.8x1027 m2/s2) using equations that are already consistent with electrodynamics etc (no need to "unify" physics when you already have a self-consistent language for dealing with the various domains of physics). This might become important when we start to consider things like electrically-induced weight-reduction, for example.

    In my opinion, what is wrong with the conventional treatment of mass is that it occludes the actual energetic functions that take place in nature, and renders dimensional analysis more complicated than it needs to be. Why do you need units for both current and force, when they have the exact same dimensionality (L2/T2)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Interestingly, Aetherometry may be the only thing on earth not to have a wiki entry.
    And for good reason. The entire concept is just so ridiculous that no one will waste his/her time to create a Wiki article about it.
    I would still like to know how many meters the author of the OP weighs...
    Actually their entire saga with Wikipedia is fairly well-documented:

    http://aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html
    http://aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia2/awp2_index.html

    You call that a "saga"? It is just idiocy. Wikipedia does not publish new research. You should know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Experimental evidence that supports the possible existence of an aether: thermal anomalies observed in faraday cage / orac / hyborac (capable of running a sterling engine 24 hrs per day); apparent anti-gravitational action of the simple gold-leaf electroscope; the dual nature of radiation output by induction coils. We could start with those three.
    Do you have proper references to these experiments ?

    Nope, I stated clearly that I accept the measured outcomes, but reject the explanation offered by relativistic theory. All we know is that particles get more and more inefficient at absorbing field energy as they attain higher velocities. There is no direct evidence that this is due to an increase in mass. Unless you have some evidence to present.
    I think you misunderstand this - it is not about how hard it is to accelerate them. Once accelerated these particles are involved in collisions, and a shower of new particles is detected as a result of these collisions. The total energy of these new particles vastly exceeds kinetic energy and mere rest mass of the original particles; if you do the maths you will find that the energy required to generate the observed particles is exactly equal to the relativistic energy of the original particles, as predicted by Special Relativity.
    So yes, there is direct evidence for relativistic mass increase, which happens when particles are accelerated to near light speed.

    And refer to 'Death by peer review' (reference above) to get a sense of how alternate physical theories are generally received by peer-review journals. Actually it is pretty much identical to your reception of me here on this forum.
    Yes, I am not surprised. What do you expect ? Do you have any idea how many crackpots are out there proliferating their 'revolutionary insights' as to how all of physics in the past century was in fact wrong, and they have just overturned our understanding of the universe ? Oh please. Of course this is the kind of reaction you get if you reject relativity and propose to re-introduce aether. Just deal with it.
    Besides, you should be mature enough to realize that we are not attacking you as a person, but rather the idea you stand for - aetherometry. Fact is that you are not going to convince anyone here that aether is a viable physical model. You are no different than all the other aether proponents we have had here. They were all convinced that relativity was wrong, and they were right. All of them.

    It is clear that you are extremely hesitant to make the (small) conceptual leaps required to even get out of the gate.
    You call re-introducing a concept such as aether, and rejecting a century's worth of empirical evidence that relativity is correct a 'small conceptual leap'. Surely you are having a laugh.

    Does mainstream science have an explanation for these thermal anomalies? Do you find fault in their experimental setup, controls or method?
    Give a reference, and I will be happy to look at it. I presume that these experiments have been independently verified ?

    Just because particle physicists have detected an energetic resonance at around 125GeV does not mean that the Higgs field exists. We are back to interpretation of data.
    That's precisely why I included the addendum "Final confirmation to follow in 2013". Several independent verification attempts are currently underway, which is how it should be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    In my opinion, what is wrong with the conventional treatment of mass is that it occludes the actual energetic functions that take place in nature
    That's you personal opinion, to which you are entitled, just like any of us.
    I do not, however, agree with it. Our 'conventional' treatment of mass works perfectly well, and gives us the correct predictions which are in accordance to experimental and observational evidence.
    A century's worth of evidence, to be precise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Experimental evidence that supports the possible existence of an aether: thermal anomalies observed in faraday cage / orac / hyborac (capable of running a sterling engine 24 hrs per day); apparent anti-gravitational action of the simple gold-leaf electroscope; the dual nature of radiation output by induction coils. We could start with those three.
    Do you have proper references to these experiments ?
    I provided a link to the Correas' paper on the Reich-Einstein experiment. Could we start there?

    [link] The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment under Limit Conditions

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Nope, I stated clearly that I accept the measured outcomes, but reject the explanation offered by relativistic theory. All we know is that particles get more and more inefficient at absorbing field energy as they attain higher velocities. There is no direct evidence that this is due to an increase in mass. Unless you have some evidence to present.
    I think you misunderstand this - it is not about how hard it is to accelerate them. Once accelerated these particles are involved in collisions, and a shower of new particles is detected as a result of these collisions. The total energy of these new particles vastly exceeds kinetic energy and mere rest mass of the original particles; if you do the maths you will find that the energy required to generate the observed particles is exactly equal to the relativistic energy of the original particles, as predicted by Special Relativity.
    So yes, there is direct evidence for relativistic mass increase, which happens when particles are accelerated to near light speed.
    Gotcha, yes I misinterpreted your original statement. H. Aspden and others have suggested that these 'motes' are merely high-energy resonances that precipitate those particles out of the underlying aether lattice (i.e. the motes do not 'come out of' the particles of matter, they 'come out of' the field energy). This is self-consistent in our minds, but may sound like lunacy to you. We may be at an impasse on this front, another clash of interpretations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    And refer to 'Death by peer review' (reference above) to get a sense of how alternate physical theories are generally received by peer-review journals. Actually it is pretty much identical to your reception of me here on this forum.
    Yes, I am not surprised. What do you expect ? Do you have any idea how many crackpots are out there proliferating their 'revolutionary insights' as to how all of physics in the past century was in fact wrong, and they have just overturned our understanding of the universe ? Oh please. Of course this is the kind of reaction you get if you reject relativity and propose to re-introduce aether. Just deal with it.
    Besides, you should be mature enough to realize that we are not attacking you as a person, but rather the idea you stand for - aetherometry. Fact is that you are not going to convince anyone here that aether is a viable physical model. You are no different than all the other aether proponents we have had here. They were all convinced that relativity was wrong, and they were right. All of them.
    Hey, my feelings are not hurt - I have found this forum to be extremely civil so far.
    It's not that relativity is "wrong" - I see science as a field of interpretations, not of "right and wrong". Some interpretations are more adequate than others, and some interpretations give you that warm fuzzy feeling of traveling with the herd, believing the same thing as everyone else. If that works for you, that's great, I'm not looking for converts, I'm looking for holes or inconsistencies in my own thought processes, and a little bit of intelligent debate always helps with that. Popular science does not work for me; it is fragmented (different and sometimes incompatible theories for different areas of physics) and has some disturbing inconsistencies (note how the dimensionality of a magnetic field is different depending on whether you measure in cgs or SI, for example). There are other and more consistent theories out there, like Aspden's, or the Correas', and I do not reject them simply because they have not captured the attention of popular science and its funded programs.

    The "disadvantage" with these theories is that they require you to think for yourself; no one is going to do it for you. You actually have to think these new theories through, without prejudgment, and see where it takes you. THEN you can judge. If you are satisfied and convinced of Relativity/QED etc, I am sure it will seem like a tremendous waste of effort, and some of you have already commented to that effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It is clear that you are extremely hesitant to make the (small) conceptual leaps required to even get out of the gate.
    You call re-introducing a concept such as aether, and rejecting a century's worth of empirical evidence that relativity is correct a 'small conceptual leap'. Surely you are having a laugh.
    The conceptual leap is to look at mass as a physical wavelength. Yes, this leads us rapidly towards the concept of massfree energy, call it what you will (dark energy, perhaps). I had already rejected relativity on philosophical grounds before ever studying aether theories, and I'm sure some of you will take issue with that. What I take issue with is keeping different disciplines of thought in their own isolated compartments. Relativity makes some sweeping philosophical suppositions, such as the nature of a continuum (Minkowski spacetime), which simply does not square off with my experience of the world.

    I don't think I've rejected any empirical evidence, I have only presented alternate self-consistent interpretations.

    Also, you are mistaken, I am not re-introducing an old concept. The Reichian/Aetherometric concept of aether is different from the classical one, in that it is formally defined as the domain of massfree energy. Mainstream science has NOT considered this possibility in any systematic fashion. It was not rejected, because you guys haven't even looked at it yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Does mainstream science have an explanation for these thermal anomalies? Do you find fault in their experimental setup, controls or method?
    Give a reference, and I will be happy to look at it. I presume that these experiments have been independently verified ?
    Reference provided above. Maybe you'd like to do an independent verification? The experiment has been reproduced by a few others; I may get to it some day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Just because particle physicists have detected an energetic resonance at around 125GeV does not mean that the Higgs field exists. We are back to interpretation of data.
    That's precisely why I included the addendum "Final confirmation to follow in 2013". Several independent verification attempts are currently underway, which is how it should be.
    That's not the point; even if they all confirm a resonance at 125GeV, the alleged Higgs field is simply an interpretation of the data, and in my view a rather poor one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Interestingly, Aetherometry may be the only thing on earth not to have a wiki entry.
    And for good reason. The entire concept is just so ridiculous that no one will waste his/her time to create a Wiki article about it.
    I would still like to know how many meters the author of the OP weighs...
    Actually their entire saga with Wikipedia is fairly well-documented:

    http://aetherometry.com/Electronic_P...awp_index.html
    Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of IgnoranceAnti-Wikipedia 2: The Rise of the Latrines
    You call that a "saga"? It is just idiocy. Wikipedia does not publish new research. You should know that.
    If you did read the first of the two articles, you saw that the Aetherometry article was deleted from Wikipedia at the request of the original author and other supporters of aetherometry after it got butchered by a band of thoughtless idiots, not because it constitutes new research.

    In case you missed it (it was buried in the appendices) here is a peer-review of the peer-review process ("Something rotten at the core of science" by D. Horrobin)

    Appendix 9 of Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance
    Last edited by massfree; July 30th, 2012 at 12:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    The above notwithstanding, an encyclopedia is not a place to publish original research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Ok, I will have a look at this asap - will likely be a few days though, I have been up the walls at work lately.

    H. Aspden and others have suggested that these 'motes' are merely high-energy resonances that precipitate those particles out of the underlying aether lattice
    I understand that ( you are not the first to bring this up ), but this does not explain where the extra energy is coming from. Even in QFT you never get out more energy than you put in.

    The "disadvantage" with these theories is that they require you to think for yourself; no one is going to do it for you. You actually have to think these new theories through, without prejudgment, and see where it takes you. THEN you can judge. If you are satisfied and convinced of Relativity/QED etc, I am sure it will seem like a tremendous waste of effort, and some of you have already commented to that effect.
    I am not a physicist, and have never been taught physics above high school level. Everything else I acquired through self-study, and thus had to think about it very hard. All by myself. I, however, find relativity perfectly self-consistent and see no need to propose an aether. There was a reason why aether was originally abandoned, you know.

    Relativity makes some sweeping philosophical suppositions, such as the nature of a continuum (Minkowski spacetime), which simply does not square off with my experience of the world.
    So in what way exactly is your experience of the world different ?

    The Reichian/Aetherometric concept of aether is different from the classical one, in that it is formally defined as the domain of massfree energy.
    So then, what exactly is the nature of that aether of yours ?

    That's not the point; even if they all confirm a resonance at 125GeV, the alleged Higgs field is simply an interpretation of the data, and in my view a rather poor one.
    No, the point is that the Higgs field is a very integral part of the Standard Model, and was thus predicted to exist within that range of energies. If you say that there is no Higgs you pretty much reject most of the Standard Model and most of quantum field theory ( not to mention group & gauge theory in mathematics ! ) along with it. Now that would be kind of difficult to justify, don't you think ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Ok, I did after all find time to look at this. The abstract alone was really enough to form an opinion; in fairness though I did skip through the 'paper' anyway.
    Before I formally respond I would like to see the independent verification of these results, which you were mentioning before, because I couldn't find any. Not that it really matters, but it would be interesting to see anyway, especially since the authors claim that there results are easily reproducible. Everything that turns up on Google is either aetherometry or Orgon energy related, and thus not independent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    There was a reason why aether was originally abandoned, you know.
    Yes, because the 19th century conception of a static, lumineferous ether proved to be untenable. I reject it too. In this respect, Einstein's work was an important step forward. But he never managed to arrive at a unified field theory, and quantum mechanics splintered off into its own abstractions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Relativity makes some sweeping philosophical suppositions, such as the nature of a continuum (Minkowski spacetime), which simply does not square off with my experience of the world.
    So in what way exactly is your experience of the world different ?
    I experience space as volumetric, three-dimensional space (and you?). A volume of space is expressed algebraically as LxLxL, not L+L+L. When you add the edges of a cube together, you don't end up with a functional expression of its volume, you get a meaningless abstraction.
    I experience time in terms of rates of repetition (frequency), not as an inverse dimension of additive space. Additive four-space is a mathematical abstraction which I haven't found any sensible use for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The Reichian/Aetherometric concept of aether is different from the classical one, in that it is formally defined as the domain of massfree energy.
    So then, what exactly is the nature of that aether of yours ?
    Massfree, non-inertial energy which produces the manifolds Space and Time. You could think of electric and gravitational fields as 'aether' in a loose sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I experience space as volumetric, three-dimensional space (and you?).
    I experience space as 3D, but my life is composed of events in a 4D universe - after all, if I set up a meeting I have to agree on location and time, or else it won't happen !
    If your life is only space without any reference to time, then you must lead a very strange life indeed !

    A volume of space is expressed algebraically as LxLxL, not L+L+L. When you add the edges of a cube together, you don't end up with a functional expression of its volume, you get a meaningless abstraction.
    How is this different from Minkowski space ? In Minkowski space you also use multiplication to get volumes. I don't get your point.

    I experience time in terms of rates of repetition (frequency), not as an inverse dimension of additive space.
    What is "inverse dimension of additive space" supposed to be ? You just made that up !

    Additive four-space is a mathematical abstraction which I haven't found any sensible use for.
    Again - what is "additive four space" ? I am not aware of such a concept. Or are you referring to the line element which is calculated from the metric tensor ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Ok, I did after all find time to look at this. The abstract alone was really enough to form an opinion; in fairness though I did skip through the 'paper' anyway.
    Before I formally respond I would like to see the independent verification of these results, which you were mentioning before, because I couldn't find any. Not that it really matters, but it would be interesting to see anyway, especially since the authors claim that there results are easily reproducible. Everything that turns up on Google is either aetherometry or Orgon energy related, and thus not independent.
    I mentioned that I thought a few others had carried out the experiment, E. Mallove for sure, he summarized his results in the paper included after the Correas' report in the same PDF document.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I experience space as volumetric, three-dimensional space (and you?).
    I experience space as 3D, but my life is composed of events in a 4D universe - after all, if I set up a meeting I have to agree on location and time, or else it won't happen !
    If your life is only space without any reference to time, then you must lead a very strange life indeed !

    A volume of space is expressed algebraically as LxLxL, not L+L+L. When you add the edges of a cube together, you don't end up with a functional expression of its volume, you get a meaningless abstraction.
    How is this different from Minkowski space ? In Minkowski space you also use multiplication to get volumes. I don't get your point.

    I experience time in terms of rates of repetition (frequency), not as an inverse dimension of additive space.
    What is "inverse dimension of additive space" supposed to be ? You just made that up !

    Additive four-space is a mathematical abstraction which I haven't found any sensible use for.
    Again - what is "additive four space" ? I am not aware of such a concept. Or are you referring to the line element which is calculated from the metric tensor ?
    Spacetime is not multiplicative, it is additive. ds2 = -dt2 + dx2 + dy2 + dz2. Notice how you are adding the dimensions of space and time together, not multiplying them, as you would for example when calculating a volume of space (or even an event within that volume of space). The metric signature of spacetime is (- +++) with the negative component associated to (spatialized) time - this is what I meant by time being treated as an "inverse dimension of additive space" - maybe not the best choice of words. Time is essentially converted to a spatial dimension and then subtracted from the other three spatial dimensions, to arrive at the concept "spacetime". Spacetime is sometimes called four-space, as it is composed of four spatial dimensions (one of which is subtracted from the other three and imagined to correspond to time).

    In aetherometry, events are not four-dimensional but five-dimensional energy-events, composed of three spatial dimensions and two (real) time dimensions.

    I find it interesting that you are willing to consider time as a dimension of space, but reluctant to consider mass as a dimension of space. Time is definitely not space-like, whereas it is easy to conceive of a length of space coiled up into a particle as the mass which that particle seeks to conserve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Spacetime is not multiplicative, it is additive. ds2 = -dt2 + dx2 + dy2 + dz2. Notice how you are adding the dimensions of space and time together, not multiplying them, as you would for example when calculating a volume of space (or even an event within that volume of space).
    This is a line element - it gives a measure of distance between two points, and has nothing to do volumes. To obtain a volume you would perform an integration over a volume element, which is different from the above expression.
    It seems you really do not understand these important basics of differential geometry - as such you are in no position to question the validity of these concepts, in my opinion.

    Time is essentially converted to a spatial dimension
    This is incorrect, time is not treated as a spatial dimension but a temporal dimension - that is why the coordinate has a different metric signature.

    Spacetime is sometimes called four-space
    Spacetime is not 4-space, and it is not composed of four spatial dimensions - see above.

    I find it interesting that you are willing to consider time as a dimension of space,
    I am not, and never have, it is just that you completely fail to understand these basic concepts. Time is a temporal dimension, see above.

    Time is definitely not space-like,
    Correct, it is not - see above.

    whereas it is easy to conceive of a length of space coiled up into a particle as the mass which that particle seeks to conserve.
    This is pretty much devoid of any meaning.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; August 1st, 2012 at 06:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I mentioned that I thought a few others had carried out the experiment, E. Mallove for sure, he summarized his results in the paper included after the Correas' report in the same PDF document.
    E. Mallove is yet another avid supporter of aetherometry, and he is directly cross-referenced with the Correas. I do not consider this independent verification. I was looking for an experiment which was properly published, peer reviewed, and independently evaluated. This is not only reasonable, but absolutely necessary within the scientific method - you would demand the same from me. My problem is that no one outside aetherometry and Orgon energy circles seems to have observed this alleged phenomenon, in any case I cannot find any reference to such an observation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Well, there was the work carried out by a Mr Einstein. He said:
    One of my assistants now drew my attention to the fact that in the room ... the temperature on the floor is always lower than the one on the ceiling
    ...
    Through these experiments I regard the matter as completely solved
    ...
    I hope that this will sharpen your skepticism so that you're not taken in by one of these understandable illusions
    Einstein's letter to Reich, February 7, 1941, English translation, in The Einstein Affair, Orgone Institute Press, 1953

    I particularly like the final sentence.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I mentioned that I thought a few others had carried out the experiment, E. Mallove for sure, he summarized his results in the paper included after the Correas' report in the same PDF document.
    Mallove's "experiment" can't be described as an independent experiment (did you actually read the document you referenced?), and it certainly can't be described as a clean one.

    I was acquainted with Mallove during the time he made the transition from MIT Press Office reporter to full-fledged zealous advocate of fringe science (cold fusion was the big stimulus, but he leaned that way to begin with). He was a nice guy, but bonkers. He completely lacked the skepticism gene, and had no clue how to design, let alone carry out, a clean experiment (but it didn't stop him from critiquing mainstream experiments). As with most crackpots, he imposed an essentially infinite bar for mainstream science ("prove that I am wrong") while keeping the bar low for any fringe idea ("I am right by default"). His mind was so open that his brains fell out. Zero-point energy; Orgone accumulators; the Pioneer anomaly; cold fusion (including the acceptance of explanations that were mutually exclusive!); infinite energy; the list goes on and on. Were he still living, I'm sure that he would have jumped on the spurious superluminal data from LHC as important.

    The guy was a genial, credulous crackpot of the first rank (emphasis on rank).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Mallove's "experiment" can't be described as an independent experiment (did you actually read the document you referenced?), and it certainly can't be described as a clean one.

    I was acquainted with Mallove during the time he made the transition from MIT Press Office reporter to full-fledged zealous advocate of fringe science (cold fusion was the big stimulus, but he leaned that way to begin with). He was a nice guy, but bonkers. He completely lacked the skepticism gene, and had no clue how to design, let alone carry out, a clean experiment (but it didn't stop him from critiquing mainstream experiments). As with most crackpots, he imposed an essentially infinite bar for mainstream science ("prove that I am wrong") while keeping the bar low for any fringe idea ("I am right by default"). His mind was so open that his brains fell out. Zero-point energy; Orgone accumulators; the Pioneer anomaly; cold fusion (including the acceptance of explanations that were mutually exclusive!); infinite energy; the list goes on and on. Were he still living, I'm sure that he would have jumped on the spurious superluminal data from LHC as important.

    The guy was a genial, credulous crackpot of the first rank (emphasis on rank).
    Ok, if that's the case I will not accept Mallove as a valid reference in support of the OP's hypothesis.
    massfree, please provide alternate independent evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Spacetime is not multiplicative, it is additive. ds2 = -dt2 + dx2 + dy2 + dz2. Notice how you are adding the dimensions of space and time together, not multiplying them, as you would for example when calculating a volume of space (or even an event within that volume of space).
    This is a line element - it gives a measure of distance between two points, and has nothing to do volumes. To obtain a volume you would perform an integration over a volume element, which is different from the above expression.
    It seems you really do not understand these important basics of differential geometry - as such you are in no position to question the validity of these concepts, in my opinion.
    It's true my understanding of differential geometry is at a rather basic level, I have not put the effort into it, since I don't see the point, when far simpler treatments give equally good results. Everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that without invoking time-dilation, spacetime or higher mathematics, aetherometry's predictions of the 1938 Ives-Stilwell experiment are just as good as the relativistic predictions. Why do you favor complexity over simplicity? Whatever happened to Occam's razor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    whereas it is easy to conceive of a length of space coiled up into a particle as the mass which that particle seeks to conserve.
    This is pretty much devoid of any meaning.
    This is because you seem to prefer higher mathematical abstractions to simple functional descriptions of physical realities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Mallove's "experiment" can't be described as an independent experiment (did you actually read the document you referenced?), and it certainly can't be described as a clean one.

    I was acquainted with Mallove during the time he made the transition from MIT Press Office reporter to full-fledged zealous advocate of fringe science (cold fusion was the big stimulus, but he leaned that way to begin with). He was a nice guy, but bonkers. He completely lacked the skepticism gene, and had no clue how to design, let alone carry out, a clean experiment (but it didn't stop him from critiquing mainstream experiments). As with most crackpots, he imposed an essentially infinite bar for mainstream science ("prove that I am wrong") while keeping the bar low for any fringe idea ("I am right by default"). His mind was so open that his brains fell out. Zero-point energy; Orgone accumulators; the Pioneer anomaly; cold fusion (including the acceptance of explanations that were mutually exclusive!); infinite energy; the list goes on and on. Were he still living, I'm sure that he would have jumped on the spurious superluminal data from LHC as important.

    The guy was a genial, credulous crackpot of the first rank (emphasis on rank).
    Ok, if that's the case I will not accept Mallove as a valid reference in support of the OP's hypothesis.
    massfree, please provide alternate independent evidence.
    I don't have one. They are not hanging metal boxes from the ceiling at CERN, as you well know. Above, I referenced the essay "Something rotten at the core of science", which you may wish to read.

    So your collective opinion seems to be that the Correas are pathological liars and Mallove was a genial, credulous crackpot, - so you gleefully throw the experimental evidence out the window. Forgive me if that seems anti-scientific. Are you capable of critiquing the Correas experimental setup and controls, instead of launching ad hominems?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    So your collective opinion seems to be that the Correas are pathological liars and Mallove was a genial, credulous crackpot, - so you gleefully throw the experimental evidence out the window. Forgive me if that seems anti-scientific. Are you capable of critiquing the Correas experimental setup and controls, instead of launching ad hominems?
    Yes, after having gone through the aetherometry website, and having done some Google research, I am pretty much convinced that the Correas have fabricated their data - that is why I was asking for independent verification, which is in perfect accordance with the scientific method in general.

    As for the setup, this needs to be done not in a basement, but in a totally shielded environment, in vacuum, cooled to temperatures close to absolute zero, and with materials which become superconducting under such conditions. One can then measure the currents flowing, and since those currents depend on the material's temperature, one can measure very accurately if there is such an effect.
    Considering that two decades worth of superconductivity research have never observered any temperature anomalies ( in Faraday cages or otherwise ) that I am aware of, I see no reason to take this very seriously.
    If you have independent evidence to the contrary, please present it here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    It's true my understanding of differential geometry is at a rather basic level, I have not put the effort into it, since I don't see the point, when far simpler treatments give equally good results. Everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that without invoking time-dilation, spacetime or higher mathematics, aetherometry's predictions of the 1938 Ives-Stilwell experiment are just as good as the relativistic predictions. Why do you favor complexity over simplicity? Whatever happened to Occam's razor?
    Far simpler treatments do not give similar results.
    And you seem to have overlooked the fact that Ives-Stilwell is not the only experiment to be explained with relativistic effects. In fact, you do not even consider the newer version of this very same experiment !

    This is because you seem to prefer higher mathematical abstractions to simple functional descriptions of physical realities.
    No, it's because I understand basic vector analysis.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; August 1st, 2012 at 12:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Above, I referenced the essay "Something rotten at the core of science", which you may wish to read.
    I had a heated exchange with Gene about this topic. He's not around any longer to present his side of the argument, but I accused him of maintaining two standards of evidence. Any disagreement with what he believed to be true was regarded by him as evidence of hidebound in-the-box unimaginative thinking. "Rotten at/to the core" to him was merely code for "unwillingness to believe in my fantasies." I simply insisted that evidence should lead us to conclusions, rather than the other way around. He cited numerous experiments as evidence, but it was too easy to find serious flaws in their design. He simply handwaved away all such criticisms of the experiments he wished were valid, but then would raise more-stringent objections to experiments whose results he did not like. So, experiments he liked were automatically accepted; experiments he didn't like had to pass a threshold of certitude that was far higher. That differential treatment is the mark of a classic crank. As such, it is not simply an ad hominem charge to dismiss Mallove's recounting of an experiment, because there is already ample evidence of his unreliability. That is hardly unscientific, any more than it would be unscientific to distrust someone who, in previous transactions, had stolen money from you. That's not ad hominem, that's common sense.

    So your collective opinion seems to be that the Correas are pathological liars and Mallove was a genial, credulous crackpot, - so you gleefully throw the experimental evidence out the window. Forgive me if that seems anti-scientific. Are you capable of critiquing the Correas experimental setup and controls, instead of launching ad hominems?
    The Correas may or may not be liars; they could be incompetent, or some combination of those. I don't know, and that's why I've said nothing about them. However, it is entirely accurate to point out, as Markus has done, that their experimental setup is so poorly designed as not to provide support for the claims made.

    And yes, Gene was basically genial (except when he got on his soapbox), and sadly, definitely a crackpot.
    Last edited by tk421; August 1st, 2012 at 02:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I don't have one.
    Oops, I missed this.
    In that case we are pretty much done here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Time is essentially converted to a spatial dimension
    This is incorrect, time is not treated as a spatial dimension but a temporal dimension - that is why the coordinate has a different metric signature.

    Spacetime is sometimes called four-space
    Spacetime is not 4-space, and it is not composed of four spatial dimensions - see above.
    I see your treatment as deeply problematic. Time is not an inverse metric of space - the inverse of time is frequency, not space, just as the inverse of space is linear density - not time. When you try to amalgamate space and time into a single manifold, you end up obliterating the physical meaning of both space and time. As far as I understand, spacetime IS conventionally treated and visualized in terms of a 4d geometric topology - therefore a spatial construct. Timings do not have geometric topology, they may have resonances, but no discernible spatial structure. In other words, timings are not 'negative' wavelengths, they are a different beast altogether.

    In order to avoid these conceptual blunders, one would need to treat space and time as two entirely different types of manifolds, as aetherometry does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It's true my understanding of differential geometry is at a rather basic level, I have not put the effort into it, since I don't see the point, when far simpler treatments give equally good results. Everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that without invoking time-dilation, spacetime or higher mathematics, aetherometry's predictions of the 1938 Ives-Stilwell experiment are just as good as the relativistic predictions. Why do you favor complexity over simplicity? Whatever happened to Occam's razor?
    Far simpler treatments do not give similar results.
    Well, in this case they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    And you seem to have overlooked the fact that Ives-Stilwell is not the only experiment to be explained with relativistic effects. In fact, you do not even consider the newer version of this very same experiment !
    I'm limiting myself to published aetherometric analyses. Would you like to look at the Sagnac experiment next?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,933
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I'm limiting myself to published aetherometric analyses.
    Sounds dangerously like a circular approach. Scientists frown on imposing those kinds of self-serving limitations. We've found it to be a lot more edifying to start with evidence and with the related (and tested) theoretical foundation that comes along with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    As for the setup, this needs to be done not in a basement, but in a totally shielded environment, in vacuum, cooled to temperatures close to absolute zero, and with materials which become superconducting under such conditions. One can then measure the currents flowing, and since those currents depend on the material's temperature, one can measure very accurately if there is such an effect.
    Considering that two decades worth of superconductivity research have never observered any temperature anomalies ( in Faraday cages or otherwise ) that I am aware of, I see no reason to take this very seriously.
    If you have independent evidence to the contrary, please present it here.
    I would like to understand why you think the experiment needs to be performed in vacuum? Are you saying that air molecules striking the metal box are a likely source of the temperature increase? Is it a well-known phenomenon that air molecules coming into contact with metal surfaces produce an increase in temperature? Do you have any references, peer-reviewed or otherwise? It is my understanding that ALL thermal energy tends to dissipate and equalize itself, regardless of what materials are coming into contact with one another.

    I would also like to understand why you think it needs to be performed with the ambient temperature close to absolute zero and using superconductive materials. Can't temperature differentials be measured at room temperature? Yours would be a different experiment altogether. Superconducters may or may not display the same temperature increase as does iron at room temperature. I guess it would be interesting to see, but it would be a different experiment. Why can't we establish controls for an experiment using iron boxes at room temperature?

    Obviously, adding EM shielding would also turn this into a different experiment, since EM shielding typically means enclosing everything in a conductive enclosure - in effect you would have a metal box within a metal box, with the outer metal box (the EM shield) now capturing the unknown energy source and converting it to thermal energy, before it ever reaches the inner metal box. In all likelihood it would cancel or drastically reduce the effect as measured at the inner metal box, but not because radio waves are the source of the anomalous thermal energy. (Are you suggesting radio waves may be the source of the anomalous thermal energy? Is this predicted by conventional theory?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I'm limiting myself to published aetherometric analyses.
    Sounds dangerously like a circular approach. Scientists frown on imposing those kinds of self-serving limitations. We've found it to be a lot more edifying to start with evidence and with the related (and tested) theoretical foundation that comes along with it.
    I only meant that I have yet to produce my own analyses of, for example, modern Ives-Stilwell variants which attempt to minimize collisional dynamics.
    But we have other examples, besides the Ives-Stilwell, which I have studied and am conversant with, such as the Sagnac experiment.
    I saw it as more practical than self-serving, limiting myself to published examples.
    At any rate, I think I'm already doing what you suggest, just using a different theoretical foundation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I would like to understand why you think the experiment needs to be performed in vacuum? Are you saying that air molecules striking the metal box are a likely source of the temperature increase? Is it a well-known phenomenon that air molecules coming into contact with metal surfaces produce an increase in temperature? Do you have any references, peer-reviewed or otherwise? It is my understanding that ALL thermal energy tends to dissipate and equalize itself, regardless of what materials are coming into contact with one another.
    What is all this ? I want to cool this down to very low temperatures - do you know what happens to air at very low temperatures ?

    I would also like to understand why you think it needs to be performed with the ambient temperature close to absolute zero and using superconductive materials.
    Because the data resolution is much higher this way, in other words, the apparatus is a lot more sensitive.

    Obviously, adding EM shielding would also turn this into a different experiment
    Ok, a hermetically sealed room then.

    Are you suggesting radio waves may be the source of the anomalous thermal energy?
    No, what I am suggesting is that no anomalous energy exists. I predict the box to be in perfect temperature equilibrium on all surface, edges and corners.

    Why can't we establish controls for an experiment using iron boxes at room temperature?
    Because its is not a controlled environment, and not sensitive enough.

    Superconducters may or may not display the same temperature increase as does iron at room temperature.
    You didn't say your alleged effect is temperature dependent, and neither did the Correas. Just like all other cranks here you guys are making things up as you go along. I was working off the information you yourself provided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I'm limiting myself to published aetherometric analyses. Would you like to look at the Sagnac experiment next?
    If you mean whether we should look at the Sagnac effect as proof of an aether, then save yourself the trouble. I have just been through this with someone else ( also an aether proponent, incidentally ), and it is an easy calculation to show that in fact no Lorentz violation exists, because if ring and observer rotate than the reference frame is no longer inertial, and thus observers can determine the rotation speed of the ring. No SR laws are violated, no differences are unaccounted for, and no absolute frames are created.
    This is all old meat, and I am bored to death having to type the maths again.

    Refer here, and look it up yourself via Google if you need to :

    Sagnac effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Born coordinates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The fact here is that the numbers for this experiment are only correct if the relativistic laws are applied, and thus the Sagnac effect is in fact evidence for the validity of relativity.

    Can you bring up something more original ?! How about we talk about the Hughes-Drever experiment, which tests Lorentz invariance and spatial isotropy of mass inertia ? Such isotropy would be violated by your aether, but no evidence for this was detected.
    No explain that !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Above, I referenced the essay "Something rotten at the core of science", which you may wish to read.
    I had a heated exchange with Gene about this topic. He's not around any longer to present his side of the argument, but I accused him of maintaining two standards of evidence. Any disagreement with what he believed to be true was regarded by him as evidence of hidebound in-the-box unimaginative thinking. "Rotten at/to the core" to him was merely code for "unwillingness to believe in my fantasies." I simply insisted that evidence should lead us to conclusions, rather than the other way around. He cited numerous experiments as evidence, but it was too easy to find serious flaws in their design. He simply handwaved away all such criticisms of the experiments he wished were valid, but then would raise more-stringent objections to experiments whose results he did not like. So, experiments he liked were automatically accepted; experiments he didn't like had to pass a threshold of certitude that was far higher. That differential treatment is the mark of a classic crank. As such, it is not simply an ad hominem charge to dismiss Mallove's recounting of an experiment, because there is already ample evidence of his unreliability. That is hardly unscientific, any more than it would be unscientific to distrust someone who, in previous transactions, had stolen money from you. That's not ad hominem, that's common sense.

    So your collective opinion seems to be that the Correas are pathological liars and Mallove was a genial, credulous crackpot, - so you gleefully throw the experimental evidence out the window. Forgive me if that seems anti-scientific. Are you capable of critiquing the Correas experimental setup and controls, instead of launching ad hominems?
    The Correas may or may not be liars; they could be incompetent, or some combination of those. I don't know, and that's why I've said nothing about them. However, it is entirely accurate to point out, as Markus has done, that their experimental setup is so poorly designed as not to provide support for the claims made.

    And yes, Gene was basically genial (except when he got on his soapbox), and sadly, definitely a crackpot.
    Thanks for clarifying your position, tk.

    I don't question that there is 'safety in numbers', and that independent validation is or should form a part of the scientific process. And keeping an open mind is not the same as mere wishful thinking. At the same time, I see the institution of peer-review journals as an impediment to forward progress - a terrible source of inertia. New theoretical approaches cannot get accepted because they don't make reference to sanctioned peer-review articles, which don't exist, because they never got accepted, because they didn't reference peer-review articles, which don't exist.... It's a catch22 that forever keeps fresh thinking on the fringe, especially when it goes against the cherished dogmas of these so-called peers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    At the same time, I see the institution of peer-review journals as an impediment to forward progress - a terrible source of inertia. New theoretical approaches cannot get accepted because they don't make reference to sanctioned peer-review articles, which don't exist, because they never got accepted, because they didn't reference peer-review articles, which don't exist.... It's a catch22 that forever keeps fresh thinking on the fringe, especially when it goes against the cherished dogmas of these so-called peers.
    Right. That is why there have been several major paradigm shifts (that I am aware of) in my lifetime. It is just so hard to get new ideas accepted.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I'm limiting myself to published aetherometric analyses. Would you like to look at the Sagnac experiment next?
    If you mean whether we should look at the Sagnac effect as proof of an aether, then save yourself the trouble. I have just been through this with someone else ( also an aether proponent, incidentally ), and it is an easy calculation to show that in fact no Lorentz violation exists, because if ring and observer rotate than the reference frame is no longer inertial, and thus observers can determine the rotation speed of the ring. No SR laws are violated, no differences are unaccounted for, and no absolute frames are created.
    This is all old meat, and I am bored to death having to type the maths again.

    Refer here, and look it up yourself via Google if you need to :

    Sagnac effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Born coordinates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The fact here is that the numbers for this experiment are only correct if the relativistic laws are applied, and thus the Sagnac effect is in fact evidence for the validity of relativity.

    Can you bring up something more original ?! How about we talk about the Hughes-Drever experiment, which tests Lorentz invariance and spatial isotropy of mass inertia ? Such isotropy would be violated by your aether, but no evidence for this was detected.
    No explain that !
    No the Sagnac does not present proof of an aether, but its results can be predicted more elegantly using aetherometric theory, without resorting to LF transformations, using the simple geometric mean composition of velocities.

    I will read up on the Hughes-Drever experiment, however at first glance, since it proves there is no preferred inertial frame of reference, it would offer evidence for the validity of both aetherometry and relativity, while disproving the 19th century concept of a static lumineferous ether.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    At the same time, I see the institution of peer-review journals as an impediment to forward progress - a terrible source of inertia. New theoretical approaches cannot get accepted because they don't make reference to sanctioned peer-review articles, which don't exist, because they never got accepted, because they didn't reference peer-review articles, which don't exist.... It's a catch22 that forever keeps fresh thinking on the fringe, especially when it goes against the cherished dogmas of these so-called peers.
    Right. That is why there have been several major paradigm shifts (that I am aware of) in my lifetime. It is just so hard to get new ideas accepted.
    Not if they fall into line with relativity, QED and the Standard Model (string theory comes to mind), yes if they undermine their very foundations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Can you bring up something more original ?! How about we talk about the Hughes-Drever experiment, which tests Lorentz invariance and spatial isotropy of mass inertia ? Such isotropy would be violated by your aether, but no evidence for this was detected.
    No explain that !
    I have mentioned a few times now that the aether of aetherometry is not a static aether, nor a lumineferous aether. It certainly does not provide for a preferred frame of reference for photo-inertial events, and thus we would predict a negative result for the Hughes-Drever experiment, just like relativity does, but for different reasons. In fact, as I have mentioned, our aether is formally non-inertial; it does not provide any inertial frame of reference, let alone a preferred one. Only material particles can have an inertial frame of reference, since only material particles exhibit inertial properties.

    In aetherometry, photons are punctual, local events which last but a bare moment and always deploy themselves at speed c relative to the inertial frame of the emitter. We do not conceive of photons traveling through space, nor traveling through spacetime, nor traveling through the aether. We conceive of them as individual globular wave envelopes which deploy at speed c relative to the inertial frame of the material particle which emits them, and then extinguish themselves on the spot. Photons in aetherometric theory are only ever emitted upon deceleration of material particles; they do not 'whiz through space', although they can be resonantly re-transmitted by adjacent material particles. But each of those particles acts as its own inertial frame of reference.

    So we do not predict so much an isotropy of mass inertia, as an endoreference (internal self-reference) for each and every unit of inertial mass - even if phenomenologically they might amount to the same thing. And we would tend to agree with the concept of 'Lorentz invariance', even if we have no use for it as such (since we do not indulge in Lorentz transformations or other relativistic chicanery).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    There's so much word salad in this thread that I find my bowels being very regular.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    There's so much word salad in this thread that I find my bowels being very regular.
    Sorry, hope it didn't make a mess. Sometimes I wish sentences could be spun into figure eights and fed to the phosphorescent turtles which (everyone knows) produce the strong nuclear force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I have mentioned a few times now that the aether of aetherometry is not a static aether, nor a lumineferous aether. It certainly does not provide for a preferred frame of reference for photo-inertial events, and thus we would predict a negative result for the Hughes-Drever experiment, just like relativity does, but for different reasons.
    How is it possible that it does not provide a preferred frame of reference if it introduces a temperature differential into a Faraday cage ? You will need to explain that.

    And we would tend to agree with the concept of 'Lorentz invariance', even if we have no use for it as such (since we do not indulge in Lorentz transformations or other relativistic chicanery).
    Would you explain the following then :
    1. How can the speed of light be the same in all reference frames without the use of Lorentz transformations ? Seems like a mathematical impossibility to me.
    2. How do you ensure that the laws of physics are the same for all observers without transformation between frames ? Again, seems to be mathematically impossible.
    3. So what is the mathematical description of your idea ? Does it reproduce the same results as SR, which after all are experimentally verified ?
    4. What's your stance towards General Relativity ? What kind of field equations do you propose for gravitational fields ? Remember that SR is only a restricted subset of relativity - we will still need to talk about the full treatment, i.e. GR.

    No the Sagnac does not present proof of an aether, but its results can be predicted more elegantly using aetherometric theory, without resorting to LF transformations, using the simple geometric mean composition of velocities.
    Show us, in general form.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; August 2nd, 2012 at 04:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I am finding it really interesting to note how you keep going on about how your maths is supposedly so much easier and superior to 'mainstream maths'. At the same you have already demonstrated a profound ignorance of even very basic principles of those maths you dismiss so easily. I wonder how you justify this ? In my mind you are in no position to make such dismissals, because you really do not understand what it is you are actually dismissing. And this goes not only for the maths, but for the physics as well, since both are intimitaly connected.

    But why do I keep talking...give us a little sample of your superior understanding. Calculate the following for us, using aetherometry :
    A satellite orbits earth at an altitude of 20,000km above ground, at an orbital speed of 14,000km/h ( these are realistic values for satellites in such orbits ). It carries a clock that can deliver a resolution of 1 nanosecond. The clock is now synchronized with an earth-based clock of the exact same make and model. After 24 hours ( 1 day ), what do the earth based clock and the satellite clock show ?
    What is the general law that governs those two clocks ?
    You can assume the satellite's orbit is circular, all speeds are constant, and the clock synchronization happens instantaneously.
    Use aetherometry only, no relativistic laws and Lorentz transformations permitted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I have mentioned a few times now that the aether of aetherometry is not a static aether, nor a lumineferous aether. It certainly does not provide for a preferred frame of reference for photo-inertial events, and thus we would predict a negative result for the Hughes-Drever experiment, just like relativity does, but for different reasons.
    How is it possible that it does not provide a preferred frame of reference if it introduces a temperature differential into a Faraday cage ? You will need to explain that.
    The molecules in the Faraday cage absorb the massfree radiative energy sourced primarily in the sun, and convert it to thermal energy by emitting photons - but each such molecule would act as its own inertial frame of reference for photon emission. I'm not seeing how the existence of a non-inertial form of energy sourced in the sun or anywhere else implies a preferred frame of reference for inertial events? Only material particles have the property of inertia.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    And we would tend to agree with the concept of 'Lorentz invariance', even if we have no use for it as such (since we do not indulge in Lorentz transformations or other relativistic chicanery).
    Would you explain the following then :
    1. How can the speed of light be the same in all reference frames without the use of Lorentz transformations ? Seems like a mathematical impossibility to me.
    The speed of light is equal to the geometric mean of the electric and magnetic waves of every and any material particle. We suppose that the electric and magnetic wavespeeds for all electrons are the same (just as the mass and mass-energy of every electron is the same). Same goes for protons and other types of material particles. Since the geometric mean of the electric and magnetic waves (the phase wave and group wave) of every and any material particle is the same, photons are always deployed at the same constant speed relative to the inertial frame of the emitter, regardless of the velocity of the emitter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    2. How do you ensure that the laws of physics are the same for all observers without transformation between frames ? Again, seems to be mathematically impossible.
    Since material particles are precipitated out of the aether according to certain rules of phase-resonance, and since we conceive of the aether as a field of true time-simultaneity capable of sustaining phase-locked resonant modes, including universal energy thresholds for the precipitation of different material particles, the laws of physics are universal, regardless of your inertial frame of reference. I'm not sure if this is the best answer, but I'm also not sure why you would suppose that the laws of physics would be different in different inertial frames of reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    3. So what is the mathematical description of your idea ? Does it reproduce the same results as SR, which after all are experimentally verified ?
    Many light interferometry experiments have the same predicted results as SR, yes - such as the Sagnac. Some, like the Ives-Stilwell, have similar but not identical predictions (in this case, the SR prediction is identical to what the aetherometric prediction would be BEFORE particle collision). Still others, such as the Silvertooth experiment, are given novel treatments. But in all such cases, we consistently treat the acceleration of material particles by electric fields according to the geometric mean composition of (a) the voltage (electric wavespeed) of the field energy and (b) the internal magnetic wavespeed of the material particle undergoing acceleration. And in all such cases, we treat photon emission as occurring upon deceleration of those material particles and referenced to the inertial frame of the latter - as if the lost kinetic energy were converted into electromagnetic energy and released at speed c relative to the emitter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    4. What's your stance towards General Relativity ? What kind of field equations do you propose for gravitational fields ? Remember that SR is only a restricted subset of relativity - we will still need to talk about the full treatment, i.e. GR.
    Aetherometry proposes that all gravitons have a universal constant of acceleration; the universal force of gravitation being equal to this constant of acceleration multiplied by (the aetherometric value of) the Planck length, which in aetherometry is the modal wavelength of the aether lattice. The force of gravitation is thus thought of as a kind of reaction of the aether lattice towards the presence of gravitational mass. Note that every material particle is in aetherometry indissolubly linked to a phase-graviton which constitutes its gravitational mass and 'receives' the impacting gravitons emitted by the aether lattice. Since the aether lattice is a field of time-simultaneity, there is no need to invoke relativistic treatments of this field. I'm not sure that such a short overview does us any good, as it is an entire subject in itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    No the Sagnac does not present proof of an aether, but its results can be predicted more elegantly using aetherometric theory, without resorting to LF transformations, using the simple geometric mean composition of velocities.
    Show us, in general form.
    The aetherometric formula for the linear Doppler shift of light was given previously in context of the Ives-Stilwell:

    ([1+v/c]/[1-v/c])0.5

    Note that there is no second-order LF transformation, such as the one invoked by special relativity. Photon emission is always referenced to the inertial frame of the emitter, and photons do not travel through space.

    Now, the Sagnac is not a linear Doppler, but an angular one, so in this case we do need to introduce a second-order term, to account for the fact that the transmission path of light (i.e. the collectivity of material particles intervening between the light source and receiver) is undergoing rotation:

    ([1+v/c]*[1-v/c])-0.5

    The resulting angular Doppler shift is identical to the relativistic prediction:

    ([1+v/c]/[1-v/c])0.5 / ([1+v/c]*[1-v/c])-0.5 = 1+v/c

    However relativity needs to invoke GR to account for the supposed disappearance or cancellation of the second-order LF transform which it invokes with respect to the linear Doppler shift of light, which in aetherometry is both superfluous and physically meaningless.

    I hope I have stated things correctly - I am still a student of all this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I am still a student of all this.
    Why are you wasting your time studying this crap, when you could do something useful. Like learn some real science.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    The molecules in the Faraday cage absorb the massfree radiative energy sourced primarily in the sun, and convert it to thermal energy by emitting photons
    Such a process does not exist - you completely made this up.

    The speed of light is equal to the geometric mean of the electric and magnetic waves of every and any material particle. We suppose that the electric and magnetic wavespeeds for all electrons are the same (just as the mass and mass-energy of every electron is the same). Same goes for protons and other types of material particles. Since the geometric mean of the electric and magnetic waves (the phase wave and group wave) of every and any material particle is the same, photons are always deployed at the same constant speed relative to the inertial frame of the emitter, regardless of the velocity of the emitter.
    This is both meaningless ( just like pretty much else you made up here ), and also not an answer to my question. What I asked was how it is possible for the speed of light to be the same in all frames of reference without using Lorentz transformations. If I move at some relativistic speed, and a photon passes me by in the same direction, which speed to I measure the photon to travel at ?

    Since material particles are precipitated out of the aether according to certain rules of phase-resonance, and since we conceive of the aether as a field of true time-simultaneity capable of sustaining phase-locked resonant modes, including universal energy thresholds for the precipitation of different material particles, the laws of physics are universal, regardless of your inertial frame of reference. I'm not sure if this is the best answer, but I'm also not sure why you would suppose that the laws of physics would be different in different inertial frames of reference.
    This is so meaningless, I don't even have any word for it.
    The laws would be different for different observers without using their relativistic form, which you reject.

    Many light interferometry experiments have the same predicted results as SR, yes - such as the Sagnac.
    Again, not an answer to my question. What is the mathematical description of your aether ? What are the field equations, the Lagrangian density, the equations of motion ? None of this is given anywhere.

    Aetherometry proposes that all gravitons have a universal constant of acceleration; the universal force of gravitation being equal to this constant of acceleration multiplied by (the aetherometric value of) the Planck length, which in aetherometry is the modal wavelength of the aether lattice. The force of gravitation is thus thought of as a kind of reaction of the aether lattice towards the presence of gravitational mass. Note that every material particle is in aetherometry indissolubly linked to a phase-graviton which constitutes its gravitational mass and 'receives' the impacting gravitons emitted by the aether lattice. Since the aether lattice is a field of time-simultaneity, there is no need to invoke relativistic treatments of this field. I'm not sure that such a short overview does us any good, as it is an entire subject in itself.
    Again, utterly devoid of any meaning. Seriously now, proposing the pink unicorn as the basic unit of all nature makes more sense than this.

    The aetherometric formula for the linear Doppler shift of light was given previously in context of the Ives-Stilwell:([1+v/c]/[1-v/c])0.5
    What is this supposed to be - frequency ? Redshift ?
    At least you can try to write down the maths correctly.

    The resulting angular Doppler shift is identical to the relativistic prediction:([1+v/c]/[1-v/c])0.5 / ([1+v/c]*[1-v/c])-0.5 = 1+v/c
    Again - what is this ? Frequency, red shift or what ?? In either case it is nothing like the relativistic prediction, in fact, it does not even contain a term for the angular momentum - how can this be connected in any way to the Sagnac effect ?

    However relativity needs to invoke GR to account for the supposed disappearance or cancellation of the second-order LF transform which it invokes with respect to the linear Doppler shift of light, which in aetherometry is both superfluous and physically meaningless.
    I really would like to know where you are getting all this nonsense from. The correct treatment of this uses GR simply because a circular movement constitutes a non-inertial frame, and thus you need to use the full general relativistic treatment.
    Perhaps you would like to present a detailed explanation of the term "second order LF transform" ? What is that supposed to be ?
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; August 2nd, 2012 at 11:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Why did you not answer my question regarding the satellites ?
    I am awaiting your detailed calculations.

    I have to be honest with you, this thread is becoming a total embarrassment. You make up terms, statements and sentences which are entirely devoid of any meaning, and just string them together to come up with some response which has no physical content whatsoever. Like I said already - the pink unicorn looks more and more like the better alternative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Why did you not answer my question regarding the satellites ?
    I am awaiting your detailed calculations.

    I have to be honest with you, this thread is becoming a total embarrassment. You make up terms, statements and sentences which are entirely devoid of any meaning, and just string them together to come up with some response which has no physical content whatsoever. Like I said already - the pink unicorn looks more and more like the better alternative.
    I don't think I've made up any terms, I'm using the terminology of aetherometry, which indeed has had to invent several new concepts in the course of its development, just like any other scientific theory has done. These terms (e.g. magnetic wave, phase-graviton) may be devoid of meaning to you because you do not speak the language of aetherometry, are ignorant of its algebraic treatment of energy multiplicities, and are unwilling to learn, or even to relax your associative mind and let it form new connections. My statements have ample physical context, but little if any relativistic context, and so you shut your ears.

    If you can construct a self-consistent physical theory using pink unicorns, or quarks for that matter (which are just as imaginary), go for it, and let us know what you come up with.

    This seems like a language barrier more than anything else. Or else I am just a terrible writer; or maybe both.

    The example with satellites is at first glance an analogue of the Sagnac, but I would have to give it more thought before giving a detailed response. Yes, those are frequency shifts i.e. Doppler shifts, as I stated numerous times. I am pretty sure that you are mistaken; the relativistic prediction of the Sagnac frequency shift is indeed [1 + v/c] (or [1 - v/c] for redshifts), where "v" is sometimes represented in terms of angular velocity, as it is for example on Sagnac effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The aetherometric formula for the linear Doppler shift of light was given previously in context of the Ives-Stilwell:([1+v/c]/[1-v/c])0.5
    What is this supposed to be - frequency ? Redshift ?
    At least you can try to write down the maths correctly.
    There is nothing wrong with my notation. Obviously, these are frequency shifts, ie. Doppler shifts, as stated. The above represents a blueshift (increase in frequency); for a redshift you would have to reverse the addition and subtraction operations. I could have written "+/-" and "-/+" to make this more clear. I could have written "f" or "upsilon" to make it more clear that we are talking about frequency shifts, i.e. Doppler shifts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The resulting angular Doppler shift is identical to the relativistic prediction:([1+v/c]/[1-v/c])0.5 / ([1+v/c]*[1-v/c])-0.5 = 1+v/c
    Again - what is this ? Frequency, red shift or what ?? In either case it is nothing like the relativistic prediction, in fact, it does not even contain a term for the angular momentum - how can this be connected in any way to the Sagnac effect ?
    You can express the velocity v in terms of angular velocity if you prefer. I don't think the conventional treatment calls on angular momentum, just angular velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Perhaps you would like to present a detailed explanation of the term "second order LF transform" ? What is that supposed to be ?
    According to special relativity, the linear doppler shift of light, which "should be" calculated as follows (where vs and vo are the velocities of the source and the observer)

    f' = f([1 +/- vo/c]/[1 -/+ vs/c])

    needs to be corrected using a second-order transformation, a Lorentz or Lorentz-Fitzgerald (LF) transformation,

    f'' = f'([1 - vs2/c2]/[1 - vo2/c2])0.5

    such that the complete relativistic treatment of the linear doppler shift of light is

    f'' = f([1 +/- vo/c]/[1 -/+ vs/c]) * ([1 - vs2/c2]/[1 - vo2/c2])0.5
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I am pretty sure that you are mistaken; the relativistic prediction of the Sagnac frequency shift is indeed [1 + v/c] (or [1 - v/c] for redshifts), where "v" is sometimes represented in terms of angular velocity, as it is for example on Sagnac effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    The calculations I am familiar with ( if expressed in terms of angular velocity ) express the Sagnac effect either in terms of phase shift at the detector



    or in terms of red shift difference



    If you can construct a self-consistent physical theory using pink unicorns, or quarks for that matter (which are just as imaginary), go for it, and let us know what you come up with.
    As for the pink unicorns - ask Strange. He worked that out in great details.
    As for quarks - it's called quantum chromodynamics ( QCD ). Not sure if you are aware of this, but quarks have been detected through deep inelastic scattering as far back as 1968. There is no doubt as to their existence, if you like it or not.

    Obviously, these are frequency shifts, ie. Doppler shifts, as stated.
    I am loosing you now - did we not talk about the full Sagnac effect, or did we talk about just red shift ? They are not quite the same, and I was under the impression that the topic of our discussion is the Sagnac effect.

    such that the complete relativistic treatment of the linear doppler shift of light is
    Just out of interest - do you have a reference for this ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Just as an addendum - the full general relativistic expression for doppler shift is



    which is a relation between an observer in the gravitational field, and an observer at rest at infinity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I am still awaiting the answer to my satellite question.
    And since you are already at it you might as well give us an idea what kind of numbers your aetherometry would predict for the Thomas precession of a gyroscope in such a satellite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    What is the physical dimensionality of mass?

    That question, as it is stated, is meaningless. The question What is the dimension of mass? is meaningful and in SI units the answer is kilograms (kg).

    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    As I understand it, conventional science effectively says that mass is an abstract statistical point (it has no length, nor any duration).

    That is incorrect. If you have a particle, such as an electron, which is thought to have zero radius (or a radius small enough for the purpose at hand), then its said to be a point particle. Since point particles have mass it is loosley referred to as a point mass just as the electron has charge it is also loosely referred to as a point charge. I don’t like those expressions because they have no exact meaning. Therefore mass can never be referred to as an abstract statistical point.

    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    Is there any experimental evidence that suggests mass is in fact such a spaceless and timeless point?

    Scattering experiments show that electrons are extrmely small. So small as to believed to have zero radius. No experiment yet designed which could prove that the radius of the electron is zero. In fact they might not be zero exactly. String theory states that all elementary particles are made of strings of a finite size. However it is no reason to think of them as being timeless.

    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    It seems to me that there is no such evidence and that the notion of point-mass is merely a metaphysical sleight-of-hand used by statisticians.

    Statisticians are mathematicians, not physicists so what they say doesn’t matter. And statistics has nothing to do at all with how mass is defined.


    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    My contention is that mass is, physically, an inertial and gravitational wavelength.
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post

    That’s quite wrong. There is nothing in any theory in physics which would support such a notion. Therefore you are stating it as an hypothesis. What evidence do you have to support such an hypothesis?

    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I acquired this idea from my study of aetherometry, and it seems far more consistent and useful than the conventional treatment of mass.

    aetherometry is not a scientific theory, it falls under the category of pseudoscience. As such this thread should have been moved to te pseudoscience forum.

    I am curious whether there are any other theorists that treat mass as a physical wavelength? Or, again, if there is any compelling reason to actually accept the concept of point-mass?


    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    For those unfamiliar with aetherometry, their suggestion is that mass-equivalent wavelength in meters is equal to 10x Avogadro's number times mass in kilograms, such that atomic mass units are equivalent to centimeters (so, in a proton, there is ~1cm of mass coiled up into a tiny torus - no probability waves, only actual electric and magnetic waves coupled to that 1cm mass). This approach allows for consistent treatment of everything from gravitational force to the CBR to atomic emission lines, without resorting to hopelessly metaphysical concepts like point-mass (or point-charge, etc).
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post

    What you said here is meaningless. When you start down such a road you are defining terms and ideas as you continue. You should therefore define and substantiate such terms and ideas as you go. It is not our responsibility to try to pull these ideas out of your head.

    In essense what you’ve done in this opening post is to expect us to treat a pseudo science like aetherometry as a real science and expect us to go learn for some unknown reasons. Instead, why not go to some place where the posters don’t think of aetherometry as a pseudoscience. It’s unclear what your goal is. Do you expect us to learn pseudoscience so that you can provce to us that your contentions on this notion are? If so then you are asking too much. We’re about science here, not pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    "aetherometry is not a scientific theory, it falls under the category of pseudoscience."

    Yeah, one too many times for me,,, Thar she goes.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    "aetherometry is not a scientific theory, it falls under the category of pseudoscience."

    Yeah, one too many times for me,,, Thar she goes.
    My bad. I thought this was in the New Hypotheses and Ideas Forum. Sorry about that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Still no answers to any of my points, specifically to my satellite questions with regards to the onboard clock, and the Thomas precession - not to forget the questions in post 71.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    "aetherometry is not a scientific theory, it falls under the category of pseudoscience."

    Yeah, one too many times for me,,, Thar she goes.
    My bad. I thought this was in the New Hypotheses and Ideas Forum. Sorry about that.
    It was....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Still no answers to any of my points, specifically to my satellite questions with regards to the onboard clock, and the Thomas precession - not to forget the questions in post 71.
    I am sorry for being offline for a few weeks; life happens.

    I am disappointed that the post was moved to pseudoscience, in my opinion this is inappropriate. Yes, pmb, I do expect a reader of a forum called "New Hyptheses and Ideas" to actually make the effort learn some new concepts.

    Markus, I do intend to reply to your question on orbital vs. terrestrial atomic clocks. Briefly, since the energy of photons emitted from material particles is a direct function of their kinetic energy at the time of emission, then if (as aetherometry contends) their kinetic energy is continuously eroded by the action of a local gravitational field, a redshift will occur. Thus aetherometry treats gravitational redshift in terms of a continuous deceleration of material particles caused by the action of the local gravitational field, or equivalently, of the action of material particles against the local gravitational field (i.e. in order to maintain relatively constant pressure and spacing, molecules must constantly deploy a portion of their kinetic energy against the gravitational field - kinetic energy which is no longer available for the transmission of photons). Thus (atomic) clocks in orbit will appear to run faster, not because time 'speeds up', but because the local gravitational field is weaker, thus the (atomic) clocks are able to run more efficiently. I did some initial calculations, and the time delta over the course of a day was extremely small, on the order of 10-17s, but this was just a first pass and I had to make some assumptions (such as the composition of the gas inside the atomic clock).

    I am a little surprised that nobody sees the advantage of having a system of irreducible measurement units consisting of only Space and Time measures (meters and seconds). The SI system is unnecessarily complex, and obscures the actual physics of, e.g., mass, charge, capacitance, current, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I did some initial calculations, and the time delta over the course of a day was extremely small, on the order of 10-17s, but this was just a first pass and I had to make some assumptions (such as the composition of the gas inside the atomic clock).
    In fairness to you I will not comment until I receive your final answer.
    I can tell you this however :

    1. Already now you are off by several orders of magnitude
    2. The actual effect is small, but large enough to be measureable easily
    3. Relativity does not need to make any assumptions about the nature of the clock, yet gives an exact answer to this scenario, which is perfect accordance to measurement and observation in actual satellites. The answer does not depend on the nature of the clock used to measure the effect.

    I shall await your calculations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I did some initial calculations, and the time delta over the course of a day was extremely small, on the order of 10-17s, but this was just a first pass and I had to make some assumptions (such as the composition of the gas inside the atomic clock).
    In fairness to you I will not comment until I receive your final answer.
    I can tell you this however :

    1. Already now you are off by several orders of magnitude
    2. The actual effect is small, but large enough to be measureable easily
    3. Relativity does not need to make any assumptions about the nature of the clock, yet gives an exact answer to this scenario, which is perfect accordance to measurement and observation in actual satellites. The answer does not depend on the nature of the clock used to measure the effect.

    I shall await your calculations.
    I believe the phenomenon has only been observed with atomic clocks. Do you have any references for orbital mechanical clocks?

    Relativity aside, the aetherometric calculation depends on the actual energy flux of the gravitons associated to the molecules that function as photon emitters. I can see that the composition of the clock would seem not to matter, if the transition frequency and the atomic mass (and thus the graviton flux) vary proportionally to each other; but for the sake of performing a calculation, some concrete example is needed; I assumed a rubidium clock filled with low-pressure rubidium gas, although I am not sure if they fill these clocks with some other type of gas. Do you know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I believe the phenomenon has only been observed with atomic clocks. Do you have any references for orbital mechanical clocks?
    The reading does not depend on the type of clock, because it is time itself which is slowed. Besides, mechanical clocks do not have enough resolution to show this effect.

    but for the sake of performing a calculation, some concrete example is needed; I assumed a rubidium clock filled with low-pressure rubidium gas, although I am not sure if they fill these clocks with some other type of gas.
    Like I said, the calculation does not depend on the type of clock, or else different satellites ( are there are many of them up there ! ) would show different clock readings, even if they move in the same orbit. That is not the case.
    The fact that your aetherometry needs to know what type of clock it is does not bode well at all - it is already in direct contradiction to empirical evidence. But if you really must know, then you can use the internationally accepted standard, being the caesium-133 clock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by massfree View Post
    I believe the phenomenon has only been observed with atomic clocks. Do you have any references for orbital mechanical clocks?
    The reading does not depend on the type of clock, because it is time itself which is slowed. Besides, mechanical clocks do not have enough resolution to show this effect.
    Mechanical clocks would not show the effect, even over a period of thousands of years, because what we are looking at is redshifted photon emission, not "time itself which is slowed". Relativity makes the mistake of equating all energy to electromagnetic energy, as if "Time" could be reduced in an absolute sense to the timing of photon emission and absorption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    but for the sake of performing a calculation, some concrete example is needed; I assumed a rubidium clock filled with low-pressure rubidium gas, although I am not sure if they fill these clocks with some other type of gas.
    Like I said, the calculation does not depend on the type of clock, or else different satellites ( are there are many of them up there ! ) would show different clock readings, even if they move in the same orbit. That is not the case.
    The fact that your aetherometry needs to know what type of clock it is does not bode well at all - it is already in direct contradiction to empirical evidence. But if you really must know, then you can use the internationally accepted standard, being the caesium-133 clock.
    Ok, I thought Rubidium-87 clocks were more commonly used in satellites and GPS, but I'll take Caesium-133 instead. From my reading here [CESIUM ATOMIC CLOCKS], I take it that the chamber is indeed completely filled with Caesium gas. I may end up running the calculations for both Rb87 and Cs133, since, as you say, the time delta should be the same or at least nearly identical for both.

    The fact that Relativity does NOT need to know what type of clock it is suggests that you are only capable of dealing with statistical epiphenomena, and not the actual energetic functions that go on in nature. If you subscribe to mainstream theory, you will not even recognize the continuous work against gravity that all matter must perform in order to maintain a relatively stationary position (such as the relatively isotropic distribution of Cs-133 atoms within the clock chamber).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Mechanical clocks would not show the effect, even over a period of thousands of years, because what we are looking at is redshifted photon emission, not "time itself which is slowed". Relativity makes the mistake of equating all energy to electromagnetic energy, as if "Time" could be reduced in an absolute sense to the timing of photon emission and absorption.
    You are misunderstanding GR rather badly - not all energy is equated to EM energy; where did you get that strange idea ? Perhaps you can explain the origin of that misconception a bit further.
    And yes, mechanical clocks, if they were sensitive enough, would indeed detect this as well.

    I take it that the chamber is indeed completely filled with Caesium gas. I may end up running the calculations for both Rb87 and Cs133, since, as you say, the time delta should be the same or at least nearly identical for both.
    It's the same in GR, which you reject - so I have no way of telling what you will come up with in your calculations. I can only compare your results to actual measurements in actual satellites.
    I can tell you, however, that all time dilation measurements ( not just in satellites ) all show the same dilation factor, independent of which method of measurement was used.

    The fact that Relativity does NOT need to know what type of clock it is suggests that you are only capable of dealing with statistical epiphenomena, and not the actual energetic functions that go on in nature.
    No, it suggest only that time dilation is quite independent of the type of clock used.
    You can do this for a single elementary particle as well, and get the same result.

    If you subscribe to mainstream theory, you will not even recognize the continuous work against gravity that all matter must perform in order to maintain a relatively stationary position
    Again, I don't know where you are getting these ideas from - if you want to stay stationary in a gravitational field you have to perform work, i.e. expand energy in one form or another.

    Also, you don't "subscribe" to mainstream science. Mainstream science is the current standard, which is accepted by default unless someone can present empirical evidence that a certain principle or law is in fact violated in nature. You can only "subscribe" to something which is not mainstream science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    37
    Hi Markus, I will need to study atomic clocks in more depth before giving any kind of detailed reply, it's not something I have had cause to investigate before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Mechanical clocks would not show the effect, even over a period of thousands of years, because what we are looking at is redshifted photon emission, not "time itself which is slowed". Relativity makes the mistake of equating all energy to electromagnetic energy, as if "Time" could be reduced in an absolute sense to the timing of photon emission and absorption.
    You are misunderstanding GR rather badly - not all energy is equated to EM energy; where did you get that strange idea ? Perhaps you can explain the origin of that misconception a bit further.
    And yes, mechanical clocks, if they were sensitive enough, would indeed detect this as well.
    It's true that you do recognized kinetic energy, thermal energy, etc. But the only reason you can say that "time speeds up" (or slows down) is because you observe shifts in electromagnetic frequency. The conceptual leap from "shift in electromagnetic frequency" to "time dilation" is unjustified and rather arbitrary.

    It comes back to the very definition of a continuum and of a manifold; relativity does spatialize time by multiplying time by c and dropping it into a geometric topology of 'spacetime'. But c is only a limiting speed for electromagnetic energy. The origin of my 'misconception' is that you define a continuum and a manifold both as 'spacetime' and you construct it by multiplying (any) time by c, the speed of electromagnetic propagation. There is nothing saying that just because electromagnetic frequency shifts are observed when electromagnetic energy is emitted by bodies in relative motion, that Time (itself) changes its rate of universal flow or that mechanical clocks (if they were sensitive enough) would undergo the same frequency shifts as are observed in photons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I take it that the chamber is indeed completely filled with Caesium gas. I may end up running the calculations for both Rb87 and Cs133, since, as you say, the time delta should be the same or at least nearly identical for both.
    It's the same in GR, which you reject - so I have no way of telling what you will come up with in your calculations. I can only compare your results to actual measurements in actual satellites.
    I can tell you, however, that all time dilation measurements ( not just in satellites ) all show the same dilation factor, independent of which method of measurement was used.
    Sure, and, for example, the Ives-Stilwell results or the Sagnac results can be accurately predicted without invoking any such thing as time dilation. I have not seen one shred of evidence to support the leap from "shift in electromagnetic frequency" to "time dilation".

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The fact that Relativity does NOT need to know what type of clock it is suggests that you are only capable of dealing with statistical epiphenomena, and not the actual energetic functions that go on in nature.
    No, it suggest only that time dilation is quite independent of the type of clock used.
    You can do this for a single elementary particle as well, and get the same result.

    If you subscribe to mainstream theory, you will not even recognize the continuous work against gravity that all matter must perform in order to maintain a relatively stationary position
    Again, I don't know where you are getting these ideas from - if you want to stay stationary in a gravitational field you have to perform work, i.e. expand energy in one form or another.
    You would think so - but mainstream theory says that you only expend work when actually moving some distance against a gravitational field. If you agree that work must be continuously performed in order to maintain, e.g. an electroscope leaf at constant deflection, it might be interesting to explore the Correas' experimental work in this field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Also, you don't "subscribe" to mainstream science. Mainstream science is the current standard, which is accepted by default unless someone can present empirical evidence that a certain principle or law is in fact violated in nature. You can only "subscribe" to something which is not mainstream science.
    I wholeheartedly disagree, and we might as well end on this note. I believe it is each individual's responsibility to think for themselves and determine the relative adequacy of both mainstream and alternative science theories. I do not accept anything by default, least of all popular opinion. If anything I suspend judgment until I have sufficient grounds to accept or reject. There are areas of aetherometry in which I maintain a state of suspended judgment (for example their exact quantification of the alpha and eta constants), and I also try to extract the functional insights of relativity, to the degree that it has any. If you can subscribe to minor science then you can subscribe to mainstream science; just because a majority of people are convinced they are right does not make them right (or wrong for that matter); in either case each individual must ultimately decide for themselves, preferably after careful and deliberate consideration, and NOT accept anything (especially popular opinion) 'by default' - doing so devolves all too easily into the insidious fascism of unthinking droves of the walking dead. This is why Eugene Mallove might have been justified on being genial towards alternative theories and overly critical of mainstream theory; taking the opposite road, as you suggest that we all do, is a dangerous path indeed.

    At any rate, I think this thread is pretty much dead. Rejected 'by default' because it does not conform to popular delusions. I do wish you all the best and thank you for the intelligent discourse where it did arise; you have helped me to see certain areas in which I have yet to penetrate clearly. But aetherometry is not pseudoscience, whatever my personal shortcomings may be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    And so, our hero wanders off into the sunset, unable to provide any evidence in support of his theory. As a parting gesture, he demonstrates how little he understands of standard science.

    PULL BACK

    FADE TO BLACK
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    It's true that you do recognized kinetic energy, thermal energy, etc. But the only reason you can say that "time speeds up" (or slows down) is because you observe shifts in electromagnetic frequency.
    Not correct. Time dilation has nothing to do with electromagnetism and frequencies. It is defined only in terms of speed and/or gravitational potential.

    There is nothing saying that just because electromagnetic frequency shifts are observed when electromagnetic energy is emitted by bodies in relative motion, that Time (itself) changes its rate of universal flow or that mechanical clocks (if they were sensitive enough) would undergo the same frequency shifts as are observed in photons.
    Yes, there is plenty of evidence for both, e.g. life spans of atmospheric muons.

    Sure, and, for example, the Ives-Stilwell results or the Sagnac results can be accurately predicted without invoking any such thing as time dilation. I have not seen one shred of evidence to support the leap from "shift in electromagnetic frequency" to "time dilation".
    That is because for some reason you are not willing to consider any of the hundreds and hundreds of other observations which confirm relativity. You may take a look at my thread "Modern Tests of Relativity", which, I am happy to say, was promoted to a "sticky" in the physics section.

    I believe it is each individual's responsibility to think for themselves and determine the relative adequacy of both mainstream and alternative science theories.
    Sorry to disappoint you, but that is not how the universe works. The universe cares nothing about what you or I think, it just works the way it does. Mainstream science isn't built on make-belief, it is built on empirical evidence and experimentation, thus so far as I am concerned it works, and it works well.
    If you prefer to base your scientific understandings on something like aetherometry, then that is your choice.

    At any rate, I think this thread is pretty much dead.
    I agree.

    Rejected 'by default' because it does not conform to popular delusions. I do wish you all the best and thank you for the intelligent discourse where it did arise; you have helped me to see certain areas in which I have yet to penetrate clearly. But aetherometry is not pseudoscience, whatever my personal shortcomings may be.
    At least you have been polite, and we were able to lead a well-behaved discussion. For this I thank you too, and I will not comment any further on above quote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    At least you have been polite, and we were able to lead a well-behaved discussion.
    True. And I was pleased that he at least made an attempt to support his idea before giving up. My little "sketch" might have been a bit unfair in that respect.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97 massfree 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1
    Poke!

    massfree - I would be interested to connect with you to discuss your study of Aetherometry

    Is there anyway to PM you?

    Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Behavioral epigenetics - nature can effect our nature !
    By scishark in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 7th, 2011, 07:46 PM
  2. Gravity and the Nature of the Physical Universe
    By Maitreya in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 13th, 2010, 09:19 PM
  3. relativistic mass, rest mass, invariant mass...
    By someguy22 in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 30th, 2009, 12:49 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 29th, 2008, 09:23 PM
  5. Quantum mechanics and the nature of Nature
    By koantum in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 7th, 2006, 02:59 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •