A proof for the Stationary Earth, Part 2

[oxmixmudd]

You won't answer me because you have no answer. You are covering over your loss with a non answer, arms length excuse.

JM

Sorry - you can't goad me. If I see a glimmer of hope, or if the topic interests me, I'll reply. If I don't I won't.

At this point, you have written massive posts 'analyzing' SR where the majority, of not all, the lines you have written contain either invalid assumptions, invalid or wrong assessments of the components of the original equations, and/or invalid conclusions about them.

To answer even 1 of your questions would require addressing each misunderstanding in detail, since you obviously do not have the means to understand them yourself.

And in the end, you are so arrogantly sure you are correct you simply ignore the information given you, except to try to reason out where it disagrees with your flawed assumptions.

Your most basic understanding of what you have read is just wrong john. You need to start at the beginning, preferably in a dialogue with someone who knows the subject, and with the understanding you don't understand so you'll ask questions when something doesn't make sense to you, and so you'll listen to and actually try to understand the answers.

I've never seen you do that, so I don't really expect it to start now. But feel free to surprise me.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You are missing John's point. He is saying gravity is caused by the aether instead of "mass attraction" and "space bending" - so no he doesn't really believe in gravity as we undertand it at all. He believes that aether does all of the acceleration that we call gravity, and he is happy to call it gravity too. So when you say "does gravity cause this or magic aether.?" it is the same thing. Both.

Except that if the Aether is the cause of gravity, the results will still be the same in terms of how orbits behave, which is why it doesn't really matter what causes gravity, just that masses are attracted proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the distance. It doesn't matter if little angels make gravity work. If it behaves according to the properties I just specified, all of John's objection evaporate. And he would understand that if he'd the slightest clue how to reason logically and mathematically about the system.


Jim

[Sparko]

Except that if the Aether is the cause of gravity, the results will still be the same in terms of how orbits behave, which is why it doesn't really matter what causes gravity, just that masses are attracted proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the distance. It doesn't matter if little angels make gravity work. If it behaves according to the properties I just specified, all of John's objection evaporate. And he would understand that if he'd the slightest clue how to reason logically and mathematically about the system.


Jim

Of course.

I just wanted to point out to beagle that John was merely playing a word game, by redefining "gravity" to mean "aether acceleration" - that way he can claim he believes in gravity, when his idea of gravity is nothing like reality. His gravity doesn't behave like real gravity does.

This tactic reminds me of the mormon trick of taking Christian terminology and redefining it, so that they SOUND like orthodox Christians, yet when you dig into the meanings of words like "trinity" you find out that their ideas are nothing like the Christian ones.
To us, Trinity means one God revealed in three persons. To them it is three gods acting as a committee.

[JohnMartin]

Sorry - you can't goad me. If I see a glimmer of hope, or if the topic interests me, I'll reply. If I don't I won't.

At this point, you have written massive posts 'analyzing' SR where the majority, of not all, the lines you have written contain either invalid assumptions, invalid or wrong assessments of the components of the original equations, and/or invalid conclusions about them.

To answer even 1 of your questions would require addressing each misunderstanding in detail, since you obviously do not have the means to understand them yourself.

And in the end, you are so arrogantly sure you are correct you simply ignore the information given you, except to try to reason out where it disagrees with your flawed assumptions.

Your most basic understanding of what you have read is just wrong john. You need to start at the beginning, preferably in a dialogue with someone who knows the subject, and with the understanding you don't understand so you'll ask questions when something doesn't make sense to you, and so you'll listen to and actually try to understand the answers.

I've never seen you do that, so I don't really expect it to start now. But feel free to surprise me.


Jim

Another arms length excuse with non specific statements made so Jim can distance himself from the many problems found with SR. It would be very easy to pick out may three sentences and in say three paragraphs show where I have made a number of mistakes. That would take you 5-10 minutes of your time. Your claims are simply not worthy of being taken seriously.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Of course.

I just wanted to point out to beagle that John was merely playing a word game, by redefining "gravity" to mean "aether acceleration" - that way he can claim he believes in gravity, when his idea of gravity is nothing like reality. His gravity doesn't behave like real gravity does.

This tactic reminds me of the mormon trick of taking Christian terminology and redefining it, so that they SOUND like orthodox Christians, yet when you dig into the meanings of words like "trinity" you find out that their ideas are nothing like the Christian ones.
To us, Trinity means one God revealed in three persons. To them it is three gods acting as a committee.

Aether flow is a cause of gravity as a material cause. The firmament is also another cause of gravity. They both act within bodies to cause the force called gravity. There is no equivocation of the word gravity. The word means a force, but the mechanism is different to that of other theories. The Mormon analogy s false.

JM

[Leonhard]

The value of v does not change at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', so v is invariant with respect to both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'.

Again, what are (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') you leave this completely unexplained. As such basically everything you say is nonsense. Do you mean two different points, at two different times in a euclidian space? Or do you mean the same point in two different inertial reference frames? I assume you mean the latter, because if you mean the former, your argument is incoherent.

v = v at both x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', so v is invariant apparent from any transform.

v = v is always true, no matter what. Any quantity is always equal to itself. Again, this is slobby notation, as I assume you mean v = v', namely the velocity at the one point, and the velocity at the other.

See this makes me think that you're merely talking about two different spatial points, each with an accociated velocity which just happens to be the same. Who cares about that? If I'm running along at 2 meters per second, and a bicyclist somewhere else, is going in the same direction at the same speed... then so what? That's not what an invariant means. That's an equality... the two velocities would be equal to eachother.

Something is invariant, if during a kind of transformation it is unchanged.

v is a fundamental variable of gamma and is not subject to a transform. If "invariance is something you apply to transformations", as you say, then c is invariant and so is v.

c is always invariant under a lorentz transformation (going from one inertial frame to another). If v is invariant, then v = c.

You said this - If something is the same after a lorentz transformation, then its an invarient - this is false.

Nope this is true.

You should have said this - If something is the same after a lorentz transformation, then there is a contradiction. For the same would be the same both before and after the transform, but the transform is a variable other than 1. Hence, the same cannot be the same both before and after a transform. The implied contradiction within your statement is another indication that SR theory is false.

The identity transformation, basically going from the inertial reference frame... to the same reference frame, is one special case of the lorentz transformation. And yes, c is invariant under this transformation. So are all quantities. Its impossible for any number to not be invariant under an identity transformation.

However c, and only c, is invarient under a lorentz transformation of any kind, and any rotation. Its tedious to prove it for the general case from the lorentz transformation alone, however I don't mind showing the proof for one of the simpler cases.

Lets take two inertial frames of reference, moving in the same direction. One at v, the other at v'. In that case we can calculate what any velocity would be like after the reference frame shift (lorentz transformation).

In this case its given by the simple velocity addition formula from the Special Theory of Relativity.



In the special case that u is equal to c, then we have for any difference of velocities (v - v').



So if u = c, then u' = c after a lorentz transformation.

However there is no u, less than c, which will be the same after a lorentz transformation. Only c is invariant under all lorentz transformations.

[Leonhard]

Aether flow is a cause of gravity as a material cause.

Speaking as a thomist, wouldn't you mean that the Aether is the material cause of gravity, than aether flow would be the efficient cause?

[JohnMartin]

Speaking as a thomist, wouldn't you mean that the Aether is the material cause of gravity, than aether flow would be the efficient cause?

I currently haven't thought out the causes of gravity in association with Thomas's understanding of causes. The aether may well be both the material and efficient cause in a certain respect, depending on what the aether model says the aether does in relation to bodies. If the aether is passive and receptive, then it acts as a material cause. If the aether is active, it must combine with a form, to act an an efficient cause. If the aether already has a form before it acts on a body, then it would act as in efficient cause, rather than a material cause.

If the aether is both passive and active, then there is evidence for both material and efficient causation.

Something to think about.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Again, what are (x,y,z,t) and (x',y',z',t') you leave this completely unexplained. As such basically everything you say is nonsense. Do you mean two different points, at two different times in a euclidian space? Or do you mean the same point in two different inertial reference frames? I assume you mean the latter, because if you mean the former, your argument is incoherent.

Why don't you tell me what x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' are so we can be on the same page? Then we can talk some more. I will read the rest of your post later.

JM

[Roy]

c is always invariant under a lorentz transformation (going from one inertial frame to another). If v is invariant, then v = c.

Careful - for any specific Lorentz transformation there may be values of v other than c that remain unchanged by the transformation.

[Sparko]

Aether flow is a cause of gravity as a material cause. The firmament is also another cause of gravity. They both act within bodies to cause the force called gravity. There is no equivocation of the word gravity. The word means a force, but the mechanism is different to that of other theories. The Mormon analogy s false.

JM

no because your "gravity" does not even work the same as actual gravity does, or you would not come up with such idiotic ideas claiming that the moon could not orbit the sun and the earth at the same time. your gravity is a force that is nothing like actual gravity. therefore you have redefined the word gravity in order to burn straw.

[Sparko]

Why don't you tell me what x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' are so we can be on the same page? Then we can talk some more. I will read the rest of your post later.

JM

what? you were spewing formulas with terms that you did not even know what they represented?????

[Leonhard]

Why don't you tell me what x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t' are so we can be on the same page?

Uh, John, you posted a flurry of equations. when I ask you what they mean, you should be the one to explain what you meant by them. Otherwise all your equations are only so much greek without any real meaning.

One of the fundemental concepts in special relativity is that of an inertial frame of reference. Its a system of measurement that is at rest with respect to an observer. Take a person standing on a side walk, and a person riding a bus that is travelling at a constant speed. Both of these are two different inertial frames. Now temporal-spatial coordinates can be attached to various events by both observers. The first person, standing on the street, sees a light turn green at (x, y, z, t), the position and the time... what about the person on the bus? In classical mechanics we'd say that he observes it at (x, y, z, t) as well... however in the theory of relativity, it turns out that these values will change depending on your reference frame.

The lorentz transformation, is a nifty mathematical way to take a spatio-temporal point in one inertial reference frame, and convert into what it would be seen as in another inertial reference frame.

[Roy]

what? you were spewing formulas with terms that you did not even know what they represented?????

He's been doing that for years.

[oxmixmudd]

what? you were spewing formulas with terms that you did not even know what they represented?????

I thought that was kind of obvious by the conclusions he was drawing from them


Jim