It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
OK, I am impressed.
I am especially impressed by your observation that much of what passes today for physics is indeed philosophical rather than realist. Philosophy is fine, but it proves lacking when actual uses for the philosophical-based physics is desired.
I will need to dig a little deeper into your equations to make more constructive comments... the disadvantage of video is that it is becomes difficult to follow the entire path unless one does so blindly. However, you have done an exceptional job of showing the pathway you used to arrive at your conclusions, so a little research deeper into your work should be simple enough to accomplish.
i have done some work on the nature of gravity and its relationship to quantum entanglement and dark matter/energy... perhaps when I am at a more developed position in that work, we can discuss it. My conclusions thus far may assist you in furthering your work.
Thank you for a great mental stimulation!
TheRedneck
Ok im unclear on something whats the point of adding a variable of a static aether? It causes additional math with zero benefits. All Einstein
did was show coordinates given by the Lorentz transformation are moving frames of reference with inertial coordinates.
It also made predictions that turned out to be wrong such as the aether wind, gave the wrong answer for simple problems like the transverse doppler effect. And don't get me started on elastic matter thats just overly complicated when o can just use points in SR.
Thanks for the positive feedback.
Of course, realism is a philosophy too. I believe the biggest mistake of modern physics was setting realism aside for the Copenhagen interpretation and other alternatives to realism. In my view, it is just a "gasping at straws" to find something, anything, to get quantum mechanics consistent with relativity. However, if we return to absolutism (and simply set relativity aside) realism can be returned to as well, and we can once again make sense of our world.
It would be most excellent to learn your further thoughts after you dig deeper into the works. Especially if you follow through the math. I don't think the math is overly difficult (much easier and far shorter than GRT or QED) but it isn't trivial either, as it does involve vector calculus in places and it might take a few hours to get through on some of the papers. So I don't know how many have dug into the math, and that's where a lot of the understanding can come from. I look forward to any constructive comments.
I would welcome any thoughts on gravity. I may get into that in time, but right now I'm working to model the Lorentz force equations and I don't know how long that will take.
One advantage I may have in this is that I am not overly tied to quantum mechanics, as are most new physicists graduating their institutions.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: delbertlarson
Yes, the wave nature is real; it has been observed on multiple occasions. I am not disputing that, not am I disputing quantum mechanics in general. I am only stating that I do not consider quantum theory (meaning any of the myriad theories that comprise such) as settled science. There are still issues which quantum mechanics cannot explain without some seriously questionable mathematical gymnastics.
Einstein did not state that it was difficult to distinguish between gravity and inertia based his thought experiment; he stated that it was impossible to differentiate between the two under the circumstances. Thus there can be no difference between the phenomena we consider gravity and that we call inertia. They are one and the same, only differing in the context under which we observe them.
That is itself a major tenet of my gravitational theory. If you dispute that, you will not be interested in what I have to say. I still enjoyed your presentation and intend to examine it more thoroughly, though.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dragonridr
You're right. Sorry to have mentioned it.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: delbertlarson
I found this yesterday www.livescience.com...
Could this news help you?
Will they perform more experiments which might get you some free results?
There are still issues which quantum mechanics cannot explain without some seriously questionable mathematical gymnastics.
Einstein did not state that it was difficult to distinguish between gravity and inertia based his thought experiment; he stated that it was impossible to differentiate between the two under the circumstances. Thus there can be no difference between the phenomena we consider gravity and that we call inertia. They are one and the same, only differing in the context under which we observe them.
That is itself a major tenet of my gravitational theory. If you dispute that, you will not be interested in what I have to say. I still enjoyed your presentation and intend to examine it more thoroughly, though.
Now about ether there is a huge problem if it exists it can't explain the transverse doppler effect.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: delbertlarson
I found this yesterday www.livescience.com...
Could this news help you?
Will they perform more experiments which might get you some free results?
originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: dragonridr
Now about ether there is a huge problem if it exists it can't explain the transverse doppler effect.
If we have Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz transformation in an aether, I don't see how the transverse Doppler shift, or any EM phenomena for that matter, won't be calculated the same as they are in relativity. (The equations are the same.) I will readily admit that if you have some other aether theory that does not have Maxwell and Lorentz, then sure, lots of things are likely wrong. But that doesn't mean that a better aether theory should be discarded because the older ones had problems.
...if we are to assume the ether is not moving we hit a problem. And it would have to be in order to be undetectable. If we assume light travels at c throughout space relative to the observer,aberration effects cause any observation at 90 degrees in there own frame to see the backside of the object causing, a partial recession red shift the entire length traveling in an ether. We would see it as a stronger red shift then SR predicts it would be.
In transverse motion data we should see stationary ether propagation effect supplemented by a Lorenz redshift I spoke of earlier at every angle not just 90 degrees. This inconsistency proves an ether doesn't exist, But relativity explains it nicely. In other words you cant make changes to Lorentz calculations that only apply in one observation and not others.
Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity.[1] The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.
My hope was that you would be open to a new perspective, but it appears those hopes were in vain. As with any new concept, it requires a decent amount of explanation, and I simply believe my time is better spent expanding my theories than explaining them in vain (again).