Replies – Forums – Marco – Page 3

Marco

Member

June 16, 2023 at 9:43 pm

Hallo @Theo,
I put here your post:

Hi All,

Kasim Muflahi saw my questions on Quora and referred me to your website. I have watched some of the YouTube videos in the past (eg. David de Hillster). I have posted many questions about SR (special relativity) at Quora, but have been frustrated by the dogma of SR supporters in Quora.

I was wondering if someone in the group have published a flaw in SRT that can withstand peer review, yet is not so complicated that it becomes a matter of interpretation? I have a few ideas, but first want to know if it is already published- one doesn’t want to reinvent the wheel.

To be more specific, I am looking for possible flaws in RoS (relativity of simultaneity) in SRT, which is claimed distinguish SRT from LET (Lorentz ether theory)?

Thanks,

Theo

Marco

Member
June 16, 2023 at 9:51 pm

If you want to find a flaws you can look for the retarded potential https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential

Best regards
Ing.mm
Marco

Member
June 16, 2023 at 9:47 pm

I think LET and SR are matematecally equivalent, so it’ll be very hard to find a difference.

Marco

Member

May 11, 2023 at 1:59 pm

Hallo @JoP ,

Aberration without aether is simply to solve (and so for this someone conjectured curved spacetime for semplify the aether problem), but is with aether that is a difficoult puzle to solve.

If you conjectured an aether for explain pioneer-anomaly, 2° order Red Shift, GPS satellite freq. shift and Big Bang, now you can’t forgot it because is simpliest.

Aberration with aether is not a simply problem because there is a lot of different type of aether behaviour, for example:
solid or fluid, static or dragged or partial dragged.

For every type of aether there are advantage and troubles but for mainstream science exist only curved spacetime…

Fizeau, Sagnac, MM-experiment, Aberration require often different type of aether.

In my previous post I meant that I find only one type of Aether that satisfies all this experiment and is:

a partial dragged fluid aether with a distribution speed of velocity with mean in the direction of gravity field.

The reason for wich aberration give the same result of absence of aether is for the 2° order of drag of light,because if it were of 1° order there there would be no aberration.

Best regard, and thanks for your question.

Ing._mm

Marco

Member

December 28, 2022 at 2:52 pm

Merry Chrismass @jop and @jerry

Excuse me if I had few time for answer to your posts.

I want to say that I’m 99% agree with Erik’s model of ether, we differ only for interaction from ether and matter but all other ideas on ether are supported from a lot of experimets and Erik explain it very well on his documents.

For the double slit experiment, when there is “the observer” in a slit, it adsorb the wave that pass trought that slit and vanish the interference returning in the case of single slit.

best wishes Ing.___MM

Marco

Member

June 16, 2023 at 9:04 pm

Hi @JoP ,

a few days ago there was a truble in this system and my last post is not present in the main discussion…
I remember you my question if you hadn’t seen it.
I don’t know if @dehilster was referring to this post in reference to the laser🤔.

Best regards Ing.mm

Marco

Member

May 23, 2023 at 12:46 pm

Hallo @JoP ,

I want ask yourself a provocative question, without offense of course:
you wrote “Yes, there is lots of energy in the ether normally not interacting wit matter. A laser can cut in iron with ether energy.”
Yes, I think aether can contains a lot of energy, but if it contains always this energy it should melt iron even without laser.
How do you explain this puzzle?

Best regards,
Ing.__mm

Marco

Member

May 18, 2023 at 9:44 am

Hallo @Jop,

Yes, it’s true, my model of aether is different from yours, but it has the same electric, magnetic and gravitational effects, so it seem identical.

The main difference is the speed of the ether particles, in my case limited, in yours close to that of light

and consequently the energy involved, in particular that relating to absorption, becomes enormous,

and even if it were converted into heat it would require enormous temperatures to be disposed of by radiation.

I explain my reason in some previous post

https://naturalphilosophy.org/groups/aether-theory/forum/topic/the-falling-ether/page/1/#post-1554

Have a nice day,

Ing.____mm

Marco

Member

May 23, 2023 at 10:26 am

Hi @Andy ,

I can answer only to some of your questions…

“…Why isn’t an atom the size of a golf ball? That’s a puzzle.”
There is a very close relationship between atoms and theyr dimensions: it depend from an exact mathematical function and the only dimensional parameter is dependent from: c (light speed) me (electron mass) alpha (fine stucture constant) and Z (atomic number).
All matter we know is made by Atoms and our instrumens and our body is made from atoms too, so if atom becames larger as a golf ball, all instruments and our body becames larger in the same scale, therefore we look atoms always in the same dimension because the ratio between all bodyes chenge always in the same scale.

With regards to aether, it is of kindled interest because from it depends the costants mentioned above and therefore the atom structure.

Have a nice day,
Ing.___mm

Marco

Member

May 23, 2023 at 9:43 am

Hi @Andy ,

I can answer only to some of your questions…

Marco

Member

May 14, 2023 at 10:34 pm

Hallo @JoP and everyone,

I’m agree with you, with almost your ideas,

I wrote my previous post to explain to all readers the different beheaviur of aether drag (light drag) respect to material fluid drag (water like): the first type is of 2° order while the second type is of 1° order.

If aether-drag where be of 1° order the aberration will be null (more precisely negletted) because the angle of star-light near the earth surfcace would be exactly compensed from eather drag effect.

I agree with no aberration on gravity, gravity field propagate at light speed because it is the longitudinal component of aether wave with or without absorbtion.

Good night to everyone

Ing.___mm

Marco

Member

May 10, 2023 at 8:58 pm

Hi @jerry ,

The speed of light is very very high but is not possible it may be istantaneus, it would be magic as wrote @JoP .

I think, as Jop, there is a medium (aether) on wich light travel on, and this medium can change the speed of light if it is moving.

There is a problem: light is a transverse wave, so, the speed summation is not Galileian but Lorentzian.

v(ac) non uguale a v(ab)+v(bc) ma w(ac) =w(ab)+w(bc)

where v is velocity and w is rapidity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity)

Transverse mode cause different behaviour from wave on water for example.

The Fizeau experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) in 1851, argue how matter generate a partial aether-dragging and change light speed otherwise from supposed in his epoque.

Aberration of starlight may be explained simply considering a 2° order effect of dragging of aether.

Good night at all.

Ing.___mm

Marco

Member

May 10, 2023 at 8:45 pm

Hi @jerry ,

The speed of light is very very high but is not possible it may be istantaneus, it would be magic as wrote @JoP .

I think, as Jop, there is a medium (aether) on wich light travel on, and this medium can change the speed of light if it is moving.

There is a problem: light is a transverse wave, so, the speed summation is not Galileian but Lorentzian.

v(ac) non uguale a v(ab)+v(bc) ma w(ac) =w(ab)+w(bc)

where v is velocity and w is rapidity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity)

Transverse mode cause different behaviour from wave on water for example.

The Fizeau experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) in 1851, argue how matter generate a partial aether-dragging and change light speed otherwise from supposed in his epoque.

Aberration of starlight may be explained simply considering a 2° order effect of dragging of aether.

Good night at all.

Ing.___mm

Marco

Member

December 29, 2022 at 2:53 pm

Hallo @JoP ,

this is a discussion between 2 great scientist who look trought centuries of history of physics and find a good model to explain almost all of human knowledge.

The only diffenrence is in infinitesimally smoll:

you don’t like singularitys but Absorbtion cause an infinite increase of ether inside matter and this is hardly explainable.

If you consider a Stagnation point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_point_flow) when ether particle became sufficiently near matter, then they are forced to change their direction and becames orthogonal to the original direction, walking away from matter but trasferring the same quantity of motion and conserving kinetics energy respect Absorbtion.

This model explain better the 2 negative bumps in Alais effect descript in your document Wang Eclipse http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=About_the_Wang_Eclipse%2C_Part_4

The 2 bumps are in corrispondence of the stagnation point alligned with circumference of the Moon.

Thank you for the interest

Ing.___MM

Marco

Member

December 29, 2022 at 2:23 pm

I agree:

Fatio’s model explain reality better then Newton’s model.

Aether was not necessary (noone never demonstate that eather not exiist) for expalin special relativity,

but is a big misteke to exclude it also from general relativity because only with mathematics we loose reality contact and cause/effect dynamics.

Regards Ing.___MM

Marco

Forum Replies Created