Does Aether Exist?

Special relativity has three equations, one each for mass, distance and time. If reference was relative, that would imply that not only would time and distance be relative, but mass would also be relative. Relative mass would allow us to violate the conservation of energy by giving us the power to alter the mass/energy content of any object in any reference simply by using a different observation reference. This allows perpetual motion.

You will need an absolute reference, if we assume there is no such thing as perpetual motion. You can't have it boths ways (no perpetual motion plus relative reference and relative mass), unless you wish to perform science magic tricks.

If we limit ourselves to just time and distance, relative reference has utility. But since SR has three equations, you need to be careful since this utility does not extrapolate to relative mass. With mass you need an absolute reference or else mass is not absolute, but is like a ghost that can get fat or skinny based on how we look at it.

The C-reference aether analysis, that I presented above, is not based on relative reference. It is based on an absolute reference, since you can not fully define the aether above, in finite reference, since any locus of finite points (reference) can only express a fraction of the aether C-point. This creates the fraction of a point paradox, which precludes the aether being subject to relative reference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yay!
Another crank sucked in.
I wonder if the thread is locked now it will trap the cranks forever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe you can explain how mass can change with relative reference. We should be able to see the force of gravity change if we use different relative references. I suppose this is needed for some of the magic tricks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup, usual crank deflection.

 

You failed to back up your claim with anything tangible beyond subjective ranting. That is crank cynicism, which the staff needs to address. Or else state the rules of crank cynicism.

SR has three equations, and mass is not relative to reference, therefore relative reference can only work if we use 2 of the 3 variables. This has utility, but there is a limit to this utility, since energy conservation can be violated allowing perpetual motion magic to be called science. Where is the cut-off and does everyone follow these rules? Or is relative ranting the way to protect perpetual motion science? This appears to give more weight than is real based on emotional reference.

 

Er, yes. As did you.
You have already been asked (by James R) to explain what you mean by C-reference, and have failed to do so.

Which are?

Really?

And more word salad...

 

The Lorentz factor or Lorentz term appears in several equations in special relativity, including time dilation, length contraction, and the relativistic mass formula.

Relativistic mass is not the same as rest mass, but it is a form of energy connected to kinetic energy, but massaged by Lorentz factor. It this energy was relative, we could create and destroy a form of energy simply by picking where we wish to stand and how we wish to percieve. Because it uses the same Lorentz factor as distance and time, referene choices in distance and time also have to apply this form of energy.

For example, we have two masses M1 and M2, with M2 twice the mass of M1. Since relativistic mass is a function of rest mass and velocity, a la Lorentz, for any given V, the M2 will have twice as much energy/relativistic mass as M1.

If we assume relative reference, assuming M2 is moving will give us twice the kinetic or relativistic mass energy as assuming M1 is moving. If I need more energy to make my theory work, I will pick M2 is moving. If I need less energy I will assume M1 is moving, since it is all relative. Space and time don't have this problem, but reference assumptions can violate an absolute energy balance.

I recognize that Einstein was not sure about including relativistic mass since it was not easy to explain in terms of mass, like rest mass. But it is obvious relativistic mass is a form of energy; kinetic energy a la Lorentz.

If I see a train moving and I am at rest and assume I am the one moving, I just destroyed all the kinetic energy within the train. This destruction of energy may not directly impact the needs of relative motion. But does it mean the relative refernece stationary train can no longer crush the train station if it hits it, since I took away all its energy with my reference choice?

 

Nope, because you'd also have to assume that the station is moving if you were.

 

If the station is lighter than the train, and they collide, will the destruction have the energy power of the train or the station?
What the energy balance does is order the references in an absolute order. Person is the lowest energy, train station is two, and train is three. This means train is moving is in touch with the reality of energy conservation.

 

Unfortunately "the station" isn't a discrete object. It's also got foundations and is "anchored" to the earth.
I think you'll find that the equations work whichever way round you use them.
That's why they still hold up after all these years.

"Absolute order"? You're confused.

 

The anchored train stain can't move, so it was all a fantasy reference.

 

Oops, methinks you missed the point.
Your post:
If I see a train moving and I am at rest and assume I am the one moving.

In such a case the station would be at rest for you. Therefore either you AND the station are moving or only the train is. Can't have it both ways.

Please do try to think before posting.

 

If we do an energy balance, using each assumption, the amount of energy will come out differently. Prove this to yourself. We could fix the experiment so both have the exact same mass. But experiment fixing aside, by comparing the energy of each reference we can tell they are not the same or relative in one very important way.

If we have a stationary and a moving object, only one has real energy in terms of motion. The other can pretend to have this energy. But it takes real energy to create real relativitity effects. Fantasy energy not create real effects but it can create illusions of real effects.

 

Um, it's your claim. You "prove it".

Wrong. It's relative.

Ooh, word salad again.

 

You need to relearn energy conservation and how to do an energy balance, if you can't see this.

 

I see, so you're still leaving it up to me to "prove" your point for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have proved it, but you seem to lack the working memories, you may have once had, that are needed to understand it. I was suggesting that you refresh your mind by restudying how to do an energy balance and read it again.

I will do another example. Maybe this will jog your memory. I will start with three rockets. Two rockets makes it easier to cheat either way, since it allows you to balance mass/energy before you begin. None of the captains of the three rockets will know who is moving and who is stationary. This way we can test all references objectively. Only the launch crew will know the real energy balance.

In this experiment, only one rocket will be moving and the other two will remain stationary. To get theat one rocket in motion we will use X amount of energy. The moving rocket, if he uses relative motion, can see either two rockets moving or just himself moving. The first choice requires 2X energy. The second choice requires X energy.

Since the only the launch crew knows that only X energy was used, only the second choice could be real. The other creates energy out of the void, like playing god.

We won't tell them, but we will allow them to extrapolate their first choice to conclusion, since reference is relative. They just added X more energy to the universe, which may be needed for the assumptions of their theory. If the person in charge has the highest rank, he use politics so this can fly as real, until the energy balance is made conscious. To avoid politics deciding theory, an energy balance levels the field.

 

Unless you set aside inertia altogether, any object with mass has a variable energy potential when compared to any other frame of reference in motion relative to it. That energy potential is dependent on the relative velocity not which is actually in motion.

The actual kinetic energy potential between any two inertial frames of reference is completely dependent upon inertia. The inertial force of a collision between two objects is not dependent upon which one is in motion. It is dependent upon the relative motion between the two objects and the inertia of each object individually.

The only part that the individual mass and motion of two objects plays is in how the trajectories of the two are changed by a collission. No matter which object is in motion the change in the state of motion of both objects will be the same no matter which is actually moving.

It is all about inertia not which object we imagine to be moving.

 

I used three objects to avoid the built in energy balance.

 

What energy was "required' is immaterial. Heck, the rocket could have been part of a rocket that was 10 times the size of the piece he saw; that would mean that it took 10X the energy to get it moving. Or it could have been going the opposite direction, decelerated to relative rest, then accelerated in the opposite direction, requiring 2X the energy.

But that doesn't really matter. All that matters to the moving rocket is the current energy of the other two rockets relative to him - and that doesn't change based on your reference frame.