Questions on the Theory of Relativity?

[MrMermaid]

@Archangel

No, i wasn’t talking about aether - if i remember correctly, aether relates only to space between material objects - I included matter into the equation in the sence that it is created by the mentioned waves - The objects themselves appear to move in much the same principle as the waves that created them, by shifting the peaks of the waves… it’s still a work in progress (I’m currently brushing up on my physics notes from school) but the idea is to think lateral, to attempt to find a new approach to an old problem… Actually this isn’t anything unheard of - it is based on the fact that matter=energy - and as energy travels through waves, and particles are made of energy, visible objects are made of particles - It follows that as composing parts are shifted through waves, the whole object is nothing else but a wave. So objects are not travelling through this quazi-aether - they ARE the same stuff…

Interesting. I don’t think I completely understand what you’re saying. Keep me posted on your work, though. And make sure that, whatever it is, it doesn’t contradict ol’ Einstein! (Unless you can find good proof that he was wrong…)

[Rafajafar]

@Archangel

No, i wasn’t talking about aether - if i remember correctly, aether relates only to space between material objects - I included matter into the equation in the sence that it is created by the mentioned waves - The objects themselves appear to move in much the same principle as the waves that created them, by shifting the peaks of the waves… it’s still a work in progress (I’m currently brushing up on my physics notes from school) but the idea is to think lateral, to attempt to find a new approach to an old problem… Actually this isn’t anything unheard of - it is based on the fact that matter=energy - and as energy travels through waves, and particles are made of energy, visible objects are made of particles - It follows that as composing parts are shifted through waves, the whole object is nothing else but a wave. So objects are not travelling through this quazi-aether - they ARE the same stuff…

Come up with any formulations you wish. Many have been found to add up. The problem is when we try to measure them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson% … experiment

[James_S_Saint]

@MrMermaid

What you’re describing is essentially a luminiferous aether. Sorry, but it was disproved by Michelson and Morley in their famous experiment in 1887. The speed of light is constant in all directions and at all velocities, i.e. in all reference frames. There can’t be any fundamental reference frame in the universe: the closest thing to it is the CMB radiation, and the measurement of its perceived red/blue-shift from the observer’s own relative velocity.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was bogus for a variety of reasons and proved nothing.

@Archangel

I see that you are struggling with reference frames, so i decided to lend a machette to your thicket, so to speak… -It is possible that there is a reference frame - space fabric. Think of it this way - what if the whole “Space” is not space at all, but instead it is packed full with infinitesimal particles that never move - just oscilate… When energy is applied to a certain point, it is actually applied to one of those particles, which continues to transfer the energy to another particle through transverse oscilation - if the oscilation frequency is such, we and our measuring instruments will detect that transverse wave as light, another time when the frequency is different it will seem as an x-ray… This would explain the dual nature of light, in the sence that light is neither wave nor a particle - but a wave of particles moving similar to the surface of the sea. It could be the reason why light can’t travel faster than c - just as the speed of sound is limited to the density of the medium the same principle would apply here - we could think of c - not as speed but as a transfer constant, the ability of the vacuum to convey energy through transverse waves…

Although I completely agree with your direction of thought (Rational Metaphysics), you are still trying to use particles separate from some space between them. Realize that your particles, at some point of reduction, must be truly infinitely small yet still achieve the same results. Truly empty space itself cannot exist in even the most infinitesimal amount. There can be no “space between” anything - ever.

So that leaves you with having to wonder of what those particles of fabric are made and what lies between them. The answer will surprise you and bring a degree of awe and enlightenment.

[Rafajafar]

@James S Saint

@MrMermaid

What you’re describing is essentially a luminiferous aether. Sorry, but it was disproved by Michelson and Morley in their famous experiment in 1887. The speed of light is constant in all directions and at all velocities, i.e. in all reference frames. There can’t be any fundamental reference frame in the universe: the closest thing to it is the CMB radiation, and the measurement of its perceived red/blue-shift from the observer’s own relative velocity.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was bogus for a variety of reasons and proved nothing.

How did you manage to get my point and completely miss it as the same damn time?

[James_S_Saint]

@Rafajafar

How did you manage to get my point and completely miss it as the same damn time?

Practice.

[Archangel]

@MrMermaid

And make sure that, whatever it is, it doesn’t contradict ol’ Einstein! (Unless you can find good proof that he was wrong…)

Hmmm… Einstein… Not sure whether he was right or wrong, but even if he is - that doesn’t mean we should consider him a god, we should always try to bring down anything that can be brought down… -But anyway, my theory rests on Einstein, i’m simply trying to follow through the logic that he used… although… i do know a guy who’s an opponent to Einstein, met him on another forum, and he made a few good points… This is his site… I’ll recommend that he comes here, so we can debate on the matter…

[James_S_Saint]

@Archangel

i do know a guy who’s an opponent to Einstein, met him on another forum, and he made a few good points… This is his site… I’ll recommend that he comes here, so we can debate on the matter…

As willing as I am to challenge Einstein and familiar with his rights and wrongs, your guy Petar Bosnic Petrus appears to be way off track, especially with his anti-gravity “gravifugal” concepts, but also his faster than light travel… although correct with his “TRANSFERENCE CONSTANT” concept.