/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15550530
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

>>15550544
So what? That was one failed experiment. Modern theories about dark matter/dark fluid come pretty close to what the aether conceptually is.

>>15550530
Look up the electric universe theory.

>>15550544
This just proves the earth is stationary wrt the aether.
Too bad they judiciously avoided any MM variation where the apparatus itself was objectively in motion (say, on a track), as this would remove all doubt. But no, every single MM experiment relies on the assumption that the aether, if it exists, does not move with the earth.

>>15550592
>>15550578
Just saying.. there is one failed experiment that points to probability of it not existing, yet non experiments proving it does exist.

Dark matter.. maybe..

Tbh, massless particle propagating it self trough space on its own is hard to accept for me to but it is what it is for now. That does not mean we wont figure something in future...

>>15550544
the problem with this is that it assumes that light goes slower in aether than in vacuum, which is not necessarily true I think

>>15550603
I can make a badly designed experiment and disprove electrons, but electrons are still real.

>>15550625
>>15550619

Hey.. i cant wait for you guys to prove it really.. atleast some things will start to make sense then.

As i said, just providing you with info. Its good to have broader perspective no?

>>15550619
Assuming aether would be some kind of material substance, what do you think, how would light be transmited?

>>15550647
You're really overthinking this. We know how waves work on a very deep mathematical level. Light is a wave.

>>15550647
Aether isn't really about light.
It's about existence of absolute velocity.
Not even necessarily measurable one.

>>15550655
Okay.. and how would this light wave propagate troug aether?

>>15550663
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave

>>15550663
How do light waves propagate through air?

>>15550693
Photons carry it.
But i am asking for your opinion, how would photon interact with aether?
If its matter, wouldnt that deflact the light? Since aether would be placed instead of vacuum.

>>15550655
>>15550667
A wave is not something by itself, it's just a form of movement/propagation. Waves of water, waves of sand, waves of air(sound). Light is a wave. A wave of what?

>>15550711
>Light is a wave. A wave of what?
Aether.

>>15550704
So you understand that light can travel through air and don't question your ability to see through air, but for some reason you think space has to be a vacuum in order for light to travel through it and remain visible?

>>15550718
Yep.
Since aether should be matter.. densly populating vacuum.
How could light go trough it?
Just conaider how light stops reaching bottom floor of ocean... it aint that hard to consider anon

>>15550730
This is the most grug-brained take on physics I've ever heard. Someone like you would probably deny the possibility of seismographs because "sound can't travel that far through stone."

>>15550730
Light doesn't go "through" aether, light IS aether, or rather, a propagation of the aether. Just like sound is a propagation of the air.

>>15550737
No need to get all fussy mister, you just had to explain like this nice fella:>>15550745

I see. So what you are saying all this time is (which you could have stated from start) that aether is carryer of energy (light). I was thinking you are postulation aether aside of photon. Thus my questioning..

>>15550752
Yes, the aether would be a medium, supposedly filling all space including vacuum and thus, making it very hard to detect by experiments. Something similar to what we call today "dark matter".

>>15550773
Thats not how dark matter works. It isn't a medium, and it doesn't fill the entire universe. It concentrates around galaxies (or galaxies form in concentrations of it).
The medium that light travels through is spacetime itself. It doesn't need an aether.

>>15550790
>The medium that light travels through is spacetime itself. It doesn't need an aether.
The mathematical contrivance of "spacetime" is just aether without calling it that.

>>15550791
Well go ahead and prove Einstein and every generation of scientist after him wrong then, anon. I'm waiting.

>>15550796
They do a pretty good job of that themselves, if I'm being honest.

>>15550791
Yeah except for the whole relativity thing...

>>15550803
What relativity thing?

>>15550544
Classical doppler effect explains it.

>>15550790
I misspoke, I meant "dark fluid", not "dark matter". And by "similar", I meant some material that fills all(or most of) the universe and that is difficult to detect by itself. And yes, the light does need an aether since it is a wave and all modern theories are nonsensical(photons are bullshit).

>>15550854
Light doesn't behave like a wave propagating through a medium. Stating that "light is a wave therefore it must require a medium" is pure conjecture. You prescribed certain features to light based on the word used to describe it.
When you move through air, the measured speed of sound changes depending on the measurement direction.
Nothing like that happens to light. If light were to be analogous to sound then this is a necessary observation that both would have to share.

>>15550588
Thanks fren, very interesting. And yes, it makes a lot more sense than the quantum bullshit.

>>15550902
Of course it changes, sound is just propagation of air and it's subjected to different resistance in different points in space, just like the waves of aether(light). Light doesn't reach the deep ocean because the waves of aether lose speed when facing resistance from air and water.

>>15550843
This. There's a great paper floating around on /sci/ proving that.

>>15550941
>Light doesn't reach the deep ocean because the waves of aether lose speed when facing resistance from air and water.
>the arrow analogy
Bait

>>15550941
>Of course it changes
It doesn't. Unlike sound the speed of light by a moving observer does not depend on the direction of measurement. So either the aether travels with the observer (contradictory) or the analogy between sound and light is fallacious and baseless.

>>15550979
>Unlike sound the speed of light by a moving observer does not depend on the direction of measurement.
This is totally false. M-M proved a classical doppler for light.

>>15550773
Mmm i see. So not that aether would carry the light but rather aether is bridge between sun and earth (for example). Energy is transfered from sun over aether to earth?

>>15550941
So aether is just there always and everywhere and doesnt really change anything about how we describe light as a wave. Why even have it, what is the difference. Is it just because you cant imagine a wave without a Medium?
If it is that we just describe light as a wave OT is not really a wave.

>>15550997
>Why even have it, what is the difference.
It's a universal reference frame.

>>15550979
You misunderstand how "propagation" works. The aether is not traveling anywhere. There's no object going from point A to B, it's just waves being created in a medium(air/aether/water/whatever), a pertubation rather than a movement. And these waves face resistance everywhere.

Seriously, watch Ken Wheeler video on the Aether, you might get a clearer picture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAlYTxd9ck8

>>15550985
Doppler effect shifts the frequency but it doesn't change the measured speed for light. So it cannot apply the same way as it does for sound.

>>15551000
So you just cant imagine stuff without it.

>>15551001
But that's the problem. If it works like that then it contradicts observations. The measured speed of light is symmetric which cannot be the case for a wave propagating in a medium like aether.

>>15551007
>The measured speed of light is symmetric
What is the one-way speed of light?

>>15551007
NTA but could you elaborate?

>>15551001
LOL i know that faggot, hes a retard that uses big words he has no understanding of.

>>15551006
No? What kind of idiot thinks like this?

>>15551018
So you have no argument. Well at least you can stop posting now.

>>15551019
>>15551027
I am not the guy you are arguing with.
Its just that this guy is stupid.

But fyi we have made a System wich Providers us with the ability to make presumptions that turn out right even on a very small scale. Its not perfecr and Its not Sone yet but it works in many ways.
If that ken guy and you want to make everybody See that the aether System is right start by makeing it work with what we can observe. Simple as.

>>15550945
I believe this is the paper you're referring to.

As usual with these threads, it's obvious that "freethinkers" don't even try to understand basic physics before declaring that physicists must be wrong about some arcane topic even further out of their grasps.

>>15551053
Yes! Thank you.

>>15550544
Have you ever thought about that yourself?

>>15551063
Lead deficiency

>>15550994
Kind of, yes, but the aether fills everything including earth.

>>15550997
Maybe it doesn't change the mathematical formulas but it fundamentally changes our understanding of the cosmos. The idea of a wave without a medium makes no sense.

>>15551084
What is the difference between your aether and photons exactly?

>>15551102
Are you in the camp of entangled photons/photon field? That's the only way the comparison would make sense.

>>15551104
I asked what the difference between photons and this "aether" is.

>>15551111
I'm wondering what your particular paradigm is where that comparison isn't immediately bizarre.

>>15551063
I bet you feel so superior talking down on others but you can't actually refute anything said here. And, of course, you can't refute what Tesla, Steinmetz, Maxwell and others said. So stick your charged particles up your ass, atomist cuck.

>>15551114
I'm wondering why you aren't answering the question.

>>15551118
It's a weird question that prompts a lot of other questions as to why anyone would make that comparison.

>>15551119
A question you are vehemently not answering.

>>15551102
The aether is the fundametal element filling the universe, not a particle. Eletromagnetic waves are just waves on the aether, including light. Nothing to do with photons. There are no particles of light whatsoever because light is not a particle, it's a wave.

>>15551122
It's a total non-sequitur so I wanted to know what prompted the comparison. It's like asking whether electrons are a liquid.

>>15551084
>The idea of a wave without a medium makes no sense
It's a series of self-generating electric and magnetic fields. It's not a disturbance of a medium.
>but what is a field
It's like an aether, but better.

>>15551125
A "fundamental element" for electromagnetic waves, how fascinating, you don't say.
Have you perhaps also heard about a certain fundamental/elementary particle presumed responsible for electromagnetic waves?

>>15551144
Aether isn't a particle.

>>15551111
What's the difference between photons and air?

>>15551143
I think you're just in denial. You will always need a medium to explain physical phenomena or else your equations will make no sense and will not be able to give a rational explanation to simple stuff.

>>15551171
Sure. But they knew about waves as disturbances of a substance, and tried to shoehorn that in where it didn't belong. The properties of the Aether as presented in the 19th century became more and more untenable. It was everywhere, yet didn't interact with normal matter, had no mass, had no physical properties whatsoever other than to carry light.
Sound familiar?
Saying "it's an electromagnetic field" also doesn't explain much, and indeed a "field" must be a sort of substance. But the interpretation of light as physical vibrations of light-bearing aether was inadequate and needs to be improved.

>>15551175
>But the interpretation of light as physical vibrations of light-bearing aether was inadequate and needs to be improved.
What in particular about this do you find objectionable?

>>15551177
It's basically Dark Matter for light instead of gravity.
>passes undetectably through normal matter
>creates no drag
>has no properties other than to fill a hole in our theories.
Aether's properties could be adjusted at will, it was an ad-hoc solution.

>>15551162
What distinguishes a "fundamental element" from a "fundamental particle" in your view?

>>15551164
"Air" is a collection of relatively sizable molecules or sometimes atoms, mainly in gaseous form. Like any standard matter, it has some mass and volume, a measurable density/pressure/temperature/etc, is usable in standard chemistry and otherwise acts much like you would expect other fluid matter to, but they have some interesting kinetics compared to liquid fluids.
Photons are fundamental particles and the above is mostly foreign to them, and they are notable (though not unique) even among particles for apparently lacking mass.

>>15551180
It has been detected though.

>>15551201
Why doesn't it interact with normal matter? Like why isn't the Earth slowing down in its orbit?
>it happens to move with the Earth
Ok what about the other planets? Are you saying it gets dragged along by the planets without friction, yet this doesn't create a disturbance in the aether that propagates energy away from the planet?
Incidentally what this all adds up to is that space-time IS the aether, but for gravity not light, and with a few unusual transformation properties.

>>15551214
>Like why isn't the Earth slowing down in its orbit?
It is, but not an amount that's particularly relevant to our human scale.

>

>>15551219
You're right. This is a thread for discussing facts about the aether, not getting slid by trolls.

>>15551175
We don't fully understand the aether, I agree with that. If did we would probably be closer to gods bending the cosmos to our will. But the aether must exist or else we end up with crackpot theories like beads of light and electricity.

>>15551217
I think you're confusing the orbital speed with the rotation speed.

>>15551217
Then you're describing gravitational radiation, and the ultra-low energy loss is provided by the weak coupling of mass to space-time. The entire idea of the aether is that matter couples strongly to the aether. Light is emitted by normal matter interacting with the aether and creating a substantial disturbance. Enough such that for example a red-hot piece of iron radiates enough light to cool down. How is vibration of heated molecules different from the Earth moving through the aether? Why isn't the Earth emitting light from its movement?
By all means, you can hypothesise a difference between these interactions, but you have to make it rigorous and quantify it or it's just a circle jerk.

>>15551224
We don't fully understand anything, that's for sure.

>>15551226
Rotational speed isn't slowing down, it slows or speeds up depending on electromagnetic interaction with the sun.

>>15551228
>Then you're describing gravitational radiation, and the ultra-low energy loss is provided by the weak coupling of mass to space-time.
So you invented a whole epicycle to describe behavior that's otherwise abundantly simple (and which you at first denied). Fascinating.
>How is vibration of heated molecules different from the Earth moving through the aether? Why isn't the Earth emitting light from its movement?
Perhaps it is, though I suspect it would be hard to find out if that were true considering the intense re-emission of light the Earth already has. You should get funding to send a space probe up and check for discrepancies between Earth's emitted spectrum and its blackbody spectrum over a long period of study.

>>15551235
I'm trying to show you that the ontology of aether persists in spacetime and gravitational radiation.
>check for discrepancies between Earth's emitted spectrum and its blackbody spectrum over a long period of study.
Ok what would I be looking for? What are the numerical predictions of the aether theory?
It was never actually a rigorous theory, it was just a loose idea. The first rigorous theory of light was Maxwell's theory, and that wasn't even its original intention.

>>15551254
What is the one-way speed of light?

>>15551263
3 x 10^8 m/s since that is how a meter is defined

>>15551269
That definition is based on the 1-way speed of light? Show me how it was derived.

>>15551275

>>15551280
Thank you for conceding.

>>15550530
>Redpill me about the Aether. Does it really exist?

Yes, they just call it space time now.

>>15550603
How many experiments have showed the rival spacetime to exist?

>>15550730
actual fucking retard

>light stops reaching bottom floor of ocean
mostly due to the phenomenon of refraction, and also scattering of light by the actual movement of the water...
the aether by definition has a refractive index of 1...

by the way what are your thoughts on schrodinger's equations?

>>15551326
None yet.

>>15551345
So why has the aether been disqualified?
It has the same property of non-existence as spacetime.

>>15551346
because einstein said so
(until he didnt, but that part is never remembered in the narrative)

>>15550530
'Aether' was a crude stopgap explanation compared to current field theory; the truth is far more complex than a mere 'aether', and is likely so for mere 'fields' as well.

>>15551539
do you have any good sources for "current field theory"?
ive been interested in learning more about for a few years now but havent really come across anything other than faraday/maxwell/heaviside/steinmetz works

because as of yet, it seems like the "complex" aether models came to a stop because of (some famous fluiddynamics guy) convincing kelvin that the maxwell "spinning tops/vortice" model was problematic;
altho it could be argued that joules' heat energy theorem kind of shouldve nullified those problems but i very much doubt the aether is in any way vortical.

>>15551116
>you can't refute what Tesla, Steinmetz, Maxwell and others said
>said
come back when they "proved", not "said"

>>15550530
If you're serious about it, Ken Wheeler is only useful when he quotes other people but everything else is new age trash and pretty pictures.
Eric Dollard is slightly better but he has an engineer's understanding of it, so he still has magical concepts like counterspace, which Wheeler likes to peddle.

Read about Faraday, Maxwell, Euler, Lord Kelvin. The aether is just a compressible fluid made of Newtonian unit masses, nothing more nothing less. To study the aether is to study the hydrodynamics of a perfect fluid.
You'll be better served by a 10 minutes google scholar search for "hydrodynamic analogy electromagnetism", "aeroacoustic spacetime" and "analogue gravity" than watching 20 Ken Wheeler videos.

>>15551007
>The measured speed of light is symmetric
you literally can't know that
i bet 99% of you academics never did ANY meaningful experiment with your own hands

>>15551334
>the aether by definition has a refractive index

Thats even worse scenario lmao

>>15551611
what do you mean?
the refractive index is perfect for aether (at least for luminiferous aether)
there are no refrangibles produced, no dissipation, only pure transmission of the forced vibrations, just as in an undamped system.

as a theoretical proof of aether,
and a debunking of whatever youre going on about with water and shit:
if the source is continually transmitting,
the space where only aether and a few thousand particles exist, as in extreme vacua,
can show resonance effects of the aether, despite extremely low particle counts in the vapor.

>>15551635
>>15551611
also at the right frequencies of aether-matter resonances,
sonoluminescence can be explained quite easily,
but cant really be well explained if there's only one energy storage element, such as if you had material atoms but no aether...

also, it just works, unlike fucking "spacetime warping and shit makes sense to me cuz im fucked in the head"

>>15551637
>>15551635
Mmm yes, agreed.

So what are implications of postulate aether again?

>>15551125
How does that explain the phenomena that distinctly require discrete particles and cannot be explained by waves?

>>15551084
>The idea of a wave without a medium makes no sense.
Because you say so?

>>15551645
A mechanical model should always be preferred to a non mechanical one.
It's more predictive, and a mechanical analogy is eternal, because mechanics is what we deal with everyday, i.e. they're empirically more salient.
Formal analogies are replaceable. They're good to factory produce academic papers, but not to direct research in productive directions. Epicycles were a formal model. The kinetic theory of gas was a mechanical model.
Bags of properties held together by the will of god like mediumless waves in an immaterial spacetime that nonetheless influences the motion of matter aren't preferable to waves in material medium that interacts mechanically with matter.

>>15551652
Because you say so
Ngl that's a pretty weak reason to believe in aether.

>>15551653
Your ideology wouldn't have brought us past epicycles because elliptical orbits give the same result.

>>15551654
lol k

>>15551658
>not a refutation

>>15551641
>So what are implications of postulate aether again?
i literally have no idea what youre asking or what you mean
what kind of implications?
what do you even mean by "postulate aether"?

no wonder you dont realize what the problem is with spacetime shit, or even recognize the merits of an aether model;
you cant even ask a question that makes sense...

>>15551652
>A mechanical model should always be preferred to a non mechanical one.
yep

>>15551654
those neanderthals would be stuck in the stone ages without people like us

>>15551663
Its simple question really.
Its asking how would accepting existance of aether impact our curent understanding of physics.

What dont you understand exactly?

>>15551668
Because they reject relativity and embrace aether on principle and aren't motivated by reason and desire to build better models.

>>15551603
>come back when they "proved", not "said"
All your favorite spacetime and electromagnetic mathematics was derived ("proved") for a material aether. To throw it out after is as preposterous as throwing out the kinetic theory of heat by postulating that heat is just something that matter has, but also keeping all the useful derivations of the mechanical model.

Even the Unruh effect, for one, was derived in "analogy" to a "fluid model" of gravity. You deny a fluid model of aether, but you can't keep your hands off fluid models.

>>15551676
>All your favorite spacetime and electromagnetic mathematics was derived ("proved") for a material aether

Was it really?

>>15551668
>Its asking how would accepting existance of aether impact our curent understanding of physics.
You would free physics from time wasting activities such as quantum philosophy, endless disputation of relativistic paradoxes, and idle semantic games interpreting relativistic experiments.

Analogue models is where advances in relativistic AND quantum physics are made. Instead of using them with a necessary degree of cognitive dissonance, with each physicist having to have an epiphany in order to reverse engineer that spacetime acts suspiciously similar to a fluid, you could just throw all physicists in unison towards studying spacetime and quantum physics as emergent from an underlying aether fluid.

>>15551680
>You would free physics from time wasting activities such as quantum philosophy, endless disputation of relativistic paradoxes, and idle semantic games interpreting relativistic experiments

Care to elaborate furthere?

>>15551679
Maxwell equations - self explanatory.
Lorentz transformation - Voigt studying the Doppler effect.
Velocity addition formula - Fizeau's drag formula.
Schroedinger's equation - derived from wave mechanics. Schroedinger uses the word ether multiple times.
De Broglie's relation - started as aether waves produced by moving matter.
Unruh effect - Unruh's "analogue gravity", which is used to study blackholes and Hawking radiation in laboratory with sound waves.

Picrel for gravity and GR.

>>15551668
>how would accepting existance of aether impact our curent understanding of physics
it would probably change the way scientists view the world and come up with new theories and maybe technology too. like compare teslas technology to even hertz work
not to mention doing away with things that are unnecessarily complicated and confusing by virtue of the inconsistency of theory of waves and energy (not needing a medium vs needing one) and so many other reasons.
also the very idea of not knowing everything there is to know right now about nature in this respect is inspiring, and having been so wrong for so long about "spacetime" could get more people interested in science again - especially those that intuitively know that there must be aether.


>What dont you understand exactly?
i literally stated them:
>what you meant by implications
>what you meant by postulate aether


>>15551674
>Because they reject relativity and embrace aether on principle
yeah i guess so;
on the pricniple of proper logic and reason derived from facts and evidence,
yknow the whole foundation of science?

>aren't motivated by reason and desire to build better models
true or not, i dont need to touch faeces to know that i shouldnt build a house from it, because it simply wouldnt hold together - just like "spacetime" theories dont hold up


>>15551679
yep and also so were schrodinger equations by the way - literally "ether wave equations"

part of the reason why many people suspect this whole anti-aether thing to be a conspiracy

>>15551680
>endless disputation of relativistic paradoxes, and idle semantic games interpreting relativistic experiments
Such as?

>>15551689
>just like "spacetime" theories dont hold up
Elaborate

>>15551684
Having an aether settles quantum philosophy, because all quantum philosophy stems from incompatibility with the relativistic notion of causality ("non-locality").
With an aether you can just recognize that relativistic time is not a causal time, and you can just have an universal wavefunction, which is just a function of the state of the aether. All quantum uncertainty is as classical uncertainty in a gas, i.e. Brownian motion in a perfect fluid, stochastic quantum mechanics.

>>15551694
mate if you think it holds up then its your turn to explain

>>15551689
Hmm would that also abolish wave-particle duality?

Yeah but i dont understand why you dont understand what implication and postulation mean. Okay i give away postulate word, it does not fit. But implication?

>>15551696
If i unserstand you corectly, aether wouldnt just be caryer of light but also of all energy?

>>15551693
Off the top of my mind, twin/clock paradox, interpretation of the Sagnac effect, interpretation of the Hafele-Keating experiment (it's just a huge Sagnac interferometer), Bell's spaceship, barn paradox, rigid body paradox, "is length contraction a real or apparent effect?", endless philosophizing about "time" and "causality", "time travel", "is acceleration absolute or relative?", etc.

>>15551704
Isnt there experiment showing that time dialation does indeed exists? (If you mean that by clock paradox). One colleague of mine presented me with this experiment when i doubted it. He said clocks trully showed missmatch in time.

>>15551703
I'm >>15551606 so I have a well defined idea of what I mean by aether. I don't need to philosophize about abstract quantities like energy. But yes, according to that model, all energy is either kinetic energy of moving aether, or potential energy due to pressure differences in the aether.

>>15551700
>would that abolish wave-particle duality
that depends what you mean
if you mean schrodingers original meaning then no, because schrodingers wave-particle duality was meant to be interpreted as follows:
"depending on the scale or context it can be considered as whichever is more suitable, regardless of the real nature of the phenomenon.
on a large scale as for example a ray of light reflecting off a mirror, the light can be considered like a particle because a billiard ball would follow that same path; but in reality it is actually a wave, and on small scales should be considered as a wave"

if by "wavepartiicle duality" you mean
oh well sometimes it IS a particle and someitimes it IS a wave, then that is almost certianly wrong, especially from the point of view of luminferous aether theories.

>i dont understand why you dont understand what implication and poslutation mean
i know exactly what the word implication means, and indeed its own implications
i dont know what you mean because youre not using the word implication in a context that makes sense.
i literally dont know what the fuck youre asking.

my postulation is that there is a luminferous aether

>>15551706
I suppose you mean the experiments with the atomic clocks? Louis Essen who invented them was a staunch anti-relativist.

Lorentz Ether Theory (Lorentz's theory of ether, for which the Lorentz transformation was formulated) and Special Relativity (Einstein's 1905's reinterpretation of LET) have the same exact empirical content, because they contain the same mathematics, so they can't be distinguished by experiment. You can differentiate them by philosophical difficulties, which for SR are legion.

Time dilation is to be understood as a real (gravitational) or apparent (motion relative to the local medium) change in the local speed of light, because by assumption you measure all your time in terms of light clocks.
Lorentz frames with the funny time variable are to be understood as conventional frames in which you assume that the speed of the wave is the same in all directions, i.e. you are stationary relative to the medium. All your measurements are distorted accordingly and systematically due to your error in assessment.
Apparent changes in the local speed of light matter to the internal mechanism of an atomic clock as well as real, in the same way apparent change in the frequency of the sound of a siren of an incoming ambulance matters to your ear. That's what you conclude from the experiment.
If you want to doubt why Lorentz transformation should work the way it works, the Prandtl-Glauert transformation in aerodynamics is the same as Lorentz transformation without the time variable. It works there too. You can find out what happens if you add the time variable to it by searching on Google Scholar "aeroacoustic spacetime".

>>15551706
The thing with twin/clock paradox is that symmetry is broken. Each twin can claim to be at rest and the other to be accelerating. *Within relativity* there is no reason to favor a particular twin's account, but one has to get older.
The way the paradox is analysed is also a sleight of hand.
The analysis usually starts by choosing a twin, and then applying Lorentz transformation to the other. This is equivalent to picking the aether rest frame first and noting that everyone else is moving. If you pick the other twin first, the end result is inverted. Again, *within relativity*, you have no way to choose the "right" twin on first try. You have to calculate both cases, run the experiment, and infer which case was correct.
So you have to appeal to absolute acceleration and "feeling force". But the effect size is not dependent on acceleration. In fact, if you minimize acceleration time, then the effect is maximized.
We can spend an entire evening with variations, with multiple outgoing twins with different acceleration profiles and travel times and compare results. I can do that, if you want.

Some might say that GR solves the paradox because of acceleration, even though the paradox is formulated wholly within SR and SR can handle acceleration. Anyway, GR doesn't solve the paradox, in fact it makes it even worse *from a relativistic perspective*. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KG-S93uG5g
As the video mentions, any sane relativist will tell you that the only reasonable thing is to give up and just track proper time.

If you have a Lorentz aether, it's simply a matter of tracking the local apparent speed of light, which causes the difference in ticking rate of proper time for each observer. You have a clear cause for the effect.

As I said in the previous post, you get a Lorentz aether from the classical aether I propose with the (fictitious, mathematically convenient) Prandtl-Glauert transformation of aerodynamics.

>>15551696
>If our magic space fluid is non-local then we have no problems.
This is moronic, it's true with or without an aether. If you abandon locality then you can solve Bell's theorm, but then you've invoked something which doesn't behave like anything else known and you have no way to test this. And there is nothing classical about a non-local fluid.

>>15551737
>>15551721
>>15551711
Thank you anons for your answers ill need some time to analyze them and make sense out of them (since i am not physicist).

I have one finall question [NOT INTENDED TO BELITLE YOUR VIEWS]. By what you guys said and provided as evidances, you have somewhat a good ground to claim your views are right. With that in mind, why arent you publishing pappers? Having such content on display should in ideal world change the minds of others.

>>15551699
You must have specific examples in mind since you say that so I'm asking.

>>15551737
The point of acceleration is to show that one twin is in an inertial frame of reference the entire time while the other one is not (or changes frames of reference when instantenous velocity change is applied). So there is a "more correct" frame of reference without the need to invoke absolute frame of reference.

>>15551760
I'm not in academia. Most of what I'm saying is published and old news. Anti-relativity and pro-aether publishing has literally never stopped making slow but sure progress.

To name a few names:

Lorentz supported the aether till his death and so did Michelson of the M-M experiment.
Dirac came to believe the magnetic vector potential to be the velocity field of an aether (1951 article in Nature, "Is there an Aether?")
Bell became a proponent of a "Lorentzian pedagogy" and then a supporter of non-relativistic "de Broglie-Bohm" quantum mechanics.

Edward Nelson derived and published his stochastic quantum mechanics, deriving the Schroedinger equation from Brownian motion in a perfect fluid in the 50's.
Marmanis revived Maxwell's "hydrodynamic analogy" of electromagnetism by deriving Maxwell's equations in hydrodynamics in the 90's.

You can find even a paper in the 40's recognizing that Lorentz transformation is Doppler effect published in Japanese.

If you're not a big name and aren't covert enough with your approval of aether, then you get extradicted and/or smeared from academia, like Herbert Dingle, experimentalist Roland de Witte, or more controversial figures like Evans, Marinov, JP Wesley, ...

Consider how, in all likelyhood, you know all about at least two or three different kinds of quantum navel gazing, but know little about all of this, despite the fact that analog fluid models are more fruitful and easier to study than whatever has come out of many-world or superdeterminism or qbism or whatnot.

To be fair, the aether side has also produced a lot of garbage bullshit ontology, but more often than not that's just retained magical thinking by having come from the relativity/quantum side, or repeating misconceptions from the old Lorentzian side.

>>15551759
Magic space fluid is spacetime. Aether is just a normal fluid.

Non-local is Einstein-speak for "breaks muh special relativity" and has nothing to do with classical locality. The same goes for "causality", which has nothing to do with classical causality.
You're supposed to accept non-determinism because QM cannot be Einstein-local and Einstein-causal and deterministic at the same time.
QM with aether is classical local, classical causal and deterministic, but the emergent Minkowski spacetime is not Einstein-causal: that's because relativistic time is not a causal time.

If you feel like attacking terminology, classical here means pre-Einstein mechanics, and classical locality means assuming only contact forces exist, long range forces being the result of underlying mechanical contact forces, like those provided by a fluid, such as the aether.
Classical causality likewise has no speed, because it's not something that propagates.

Bell himself supported Lorentz ether and de Broglie-Bohm.

>>15551821
The rocket twin claims he is stationary and he sees the Earth twin accelerate away from him, and then accelerate towards him. What makes his perspective less real than the Earth twin? "The acceleration on the Earth twin is relative and kinematical, but the acceleration on the rocket twin is forced and absolute."

>>15551846
>Non-local is Einstein-speak for "breaks muh special relativity" and has nothing to do with classical locality.
Ok, so if the aether is classically non-local, why is there no propagation of classical information faster than the speed of light? It's only useless information about quantum states that no one can use to communicate. Why should this be so if quantum information is just classical?
And it's not just breaks relativity. You're not talking about a fluid anymore if it propagates at infinite velocity. It is like nothing else in physics.
You're also making the great big assumption that the QM field can be described by the same field as the aether. This has not been demonstrated.

>>15551228
>Why isn't the Earth emitting light from its movement?
It's actually a little-known fact that the gas giants in our solar system all emit multiple times the radiation they receive from the sun. Astronomers have come up with very dubious "contraction" models to try to explain this. The radiation discrepancy is hardly ever mentioned because it's so inconvenient.

>>15550544
>measure wind speed inside a closed room
>wow, 0 m/s!
>conclusion: Earth is stationary
great science there, buddy

>>15551863
>why is there no propagation of classical information faster than the speed of light?
superluminal signals have been measured countless times, retard
of course you won't see it published in "peer-reviewed" (read: circle-jerk) journals, because those people won't admit relativity theory is retarded nonsense until the day they die

>>15551254
>What are the numerical predictions of the aether theory?
Pioneer anomaly: a=-1/4c
Gravitational constant: G=(1/4c)/4pi
Hubble's constant: H=1/4c^2

>>15551869
Where? The fact you're too scared to just cite them upfront tells me all I need to know about the legitimacy of the experiments.

>>15551873
Wrong units. Numerology is not science.

>>15551877
>Where?
countless people have measured them
read e.g. this thread:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did-I-actually-measure-a-superluminous-signal-thus-disproving-the-relativity-theory
>you're too scared to just cite them
lmao
braindead retard detected
no, me preemptively calling out the trash circle-jerk retardation that is "peer-review" is not being "too scared", it's just calling out bullshit

>>15551877
>>15551879
or read LaViolette's work, where he conclusively proves both the existence of the ether and the possibility of superluminal signals (relativity theory truly is braindead retardation)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389212025205
>The notion of an ether, or of an absolute reference frame in space, necessarily conflicts with the postulate of special relativity that all frames should be relative and that the velocity of light should be a universal constant. However, experiments by Sagnac (1913), Graneau (1983), Silvertooth (1987, 1989), Pappas and Vaughan (1990), Lafforgue (1991), and Cornille (1998), to name just a few, have established that the idea of relative frames is untenable and should be replaced with the notion of an absolute ether frame. Also a moderately simple experiment performed by Alexis Guy Obolensky has clocked speeds as high as 5c for Coulomb shocks traveling across his laboratory (LaViolette, 2008a). Furthermore Podkletnov and Modanese (2011) report having measured a speed of 64c for a collimated gravity impulse wave produced by a high voltage discharge emitted from a superconducting anode. These experiments not only soundly refute the special theory of relativity, but also indicate that information can be communicated at superluminal speeds.

>>15551877
>>15551879
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335677198_Electronic_data_transmission_at_three_times_the_speed_of_light_and_data_rates_of_2000_bits_per_second_over_long_distances_in_buffer_amplifier_chains
>Electronic data transmission at three times the speed of light and data rates of 2000 bits per second over long distances in buffer amplifier chains

>>15551878
Tell that to Rydberg

>>15551863
>Ok, so if the aether is classically non-local, why is there no propagation of classical information faster than the speed of light?
Aether is classically local almost by definition of classical locality. You posit an aether for the same reason you posit air to explain how objects can impact your ears at a distance: it's not spooky action at a distance, it's a chain of contact forces that begins at the objects and ends at your eardrum. You wanted to say Einstein non-local. It simply has no need to be or not be Einstein non-local.

About Even if we ignore longitudinal electric fields as too controversial, QM uncertainty in the aether is classical uncertainty plus aether state. Classical uncertainty also "propagates" (i.e. it doesn't propagate) at the speed of you figuring stuff out.

I'll also remind you that superluminal velocity isn't infinite velocity, and neither is arbitrarily high velocity.

>You're also making the great big assumption that the QM field can be described by the same field as the aether. This has not been demonstrated.
The same great big huge giant humongous gargantuan assumption that Schroedinger made to derive his equation? Eh, I'll take the odds.
As I said, Edward Nelson derived the Schroedinger equation from Brownian motion in a perfect fluid, which is what I claim the aether is. That has been demonstrated.
Personal incredulity of people invested in a competing paradigm is not negative evidence.

>>15551879
Yeah, no. If you can't be bothered to do an error analysis then you wouldn't pass an undergrad lab, much less prove superluminal motion. He is only using one circuit for signal and measurement, he doesn't change it's size to check if the result scales. And his individual delay measurements vary wildly, by a factor of 2. That is enough reason alone to reject it. Something is deeply inconsistent. He does not rule out interference between the lines. The experiment isn't even described well, no discussion on the expected time or the huge variation in his individual measurements.
So do you have any convincing experiments or it is it all like this?

>>15551905
>Yeah, no.
ah, denial, the most predictable of responses
>If you can't be bothered to do an error analysis then you wouldn't pass an undergrad lab, much less prove superluminal motion. He is only using one circuit for signal and measurement, he doesn't change it's size to check if the result scales.
it's truly hilarious when midwits try to "deboonk" experiments they really have zero idea about and have only known about for a few minutes
it's almost like you're starting with the conclusion and trying to work from there, typical anti-scientific braindead retardation, like all relativity cultists
it's also funny how you try to cling to one experiment even though I posted an entire thread chock full of conclusive evidence, as well as a paper doing the same
but hey, feel free to remain an ignorant retard all you like and cling to delusional relativity cultism

anyway, I've left plenty of good information now
feel free to peruse it and educate yourself on the reality of the ether and superluminal signals, or remain an ignorant moron and cling to relativity cultism
your choice
closing this tab now so I won't have to read a single more word of your retardation
bye, loser

>>15551914
Wow, what an intelligent defense. You're crying because I didn't blindly accept some random guys post of fucking ResearchGate. If this is the level of scientific discussion you are capable of I won't bother.
>it's also funny how you try to cling to one experiment
This is the one you chose to post. I'm not reading 20 more turds like this, especially since you have nothing to offer in response. If you think one is utterly convincing then cite it.

>>15551920
>anyway, I've left plenty of good information now
>feel free to peruse it and educate yourself on the reality of the ether and superluminal signals, or remain an ignorant moron and cling to relativity cultism
>your choice
>closing this tab now so I won't have to read a single more word of your retardation
>bye, loser

>>15551885
>Citing LaViolette, the L Ron Hubbard of astronomy
Why didn't you say this was scifi roleplay?

>>15551885
>Podkletnov and Modanese (2011) report having measured a speed of 64c
>Accordingly, the superluminal correlation between the two sensors does not necessarily imply superluminal information transmission.

Aether is implied by GR anyway. It turns out that in Einstein's theory the little term he added to the equations to make his stupid little theory correct, implies "space-time" has properties like pressure and density [math]{\eta}_{im} = \frac{8{\pi}G}{{c^4}{\Lambda}}T^{(vac)}_{im}[/math] . This "Dark Energy" that Einstein added is just the aether. This is the same reason we get equations like [math]{\Lambda} = {\kappa} {\rho}^{(vac)}[/math] on wikipedia because space has physical properties in Einstein relativity. So in order to make his field equations work he had to rely on aether. With an aether model we can explain both the accelerating expansion of the universe and the high rotation speeds of galaxies as aether particles bumping into existing matter and transferring momentum.

>>15550530
Aether :|
Quantum aether :o

>>15551976
Dark energy has nothing to do with light. The cosmological constant is not an aether. Also no one predicted that the aether would have a fixed energy density as the cosmological constant does.
>the high rotation speeds of galaxies as aether particles bumping into existing matter and transferring momentum.
Ad hoc handwaving. The aether does everything you need it to, aether of the gaps.

>>15551976
>aether particles bumping into existing matter
Aether particles can't bump into existing matter, because matter is organized local flows of aether. Water particles don't bump into water vortices.

>>15551850
Acceleration is not relative. The one undergoing acceleration is not in an inertial frame of reference so you can't treat him as being in an inertial frame of reference.
They can claim that they are both the stationary twin when one twin is doing a fly-by at a constant velocity by the other twin. In that case they both are truly in inertial frames of reference.

>>15551886
I have done many transmission line experiments and not once have I recorded signals traveling faster than the speed of light.

>>15552279
>Acceleration is not relative
So you're appealing to absolute acceleration. You might want to reread >>15551737

>The one undergoing acceleration
The rocket twin sees the Earth twin accelerate away from him and then towards him. He concludes he has been in an inertial frame of reference all along. The Earth twin sees the same, but it's the rocket twin accelerating away and back. Who is wrong?

>>15550530
>>15550544
>From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary aether.[A 6] In addition, the Michelson–Morley null result was further substantiated by the null results of other second-order experiments of different kind, namely the Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) and the experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902–1904). These problems and their solution led to the development of the Lorentz transformation and special relativity.

It was so bad they had to come up with another batshit psychosis to explain the results, even requiring extra pilpul explanations from the infamous crackpot himself.

>>15552335
No. Acceleration is absolutely non-relative. I keep talking about inertial frames of reference (acceleration means you aren't in one and the accelerating twin is not in an inertial frame of reference) and the acceleration itself is not that important apart from how it affects frames of reference. You just intentionally keep ignoring my point.
>Who is wrong?
The twin that left. They can both confirm who is in an inertial frame of reference by independent experiments. It's not at all like velocity where there's no true absolute frame of reference.

>>15552377
>>15552377
Ok, so you're of the type that settles on absolute acceleration. That settles the issue of choosing which twin is the travelling one.
You still have two problems. One is in the video I linked in the original post, in which the role of the accelerated and inertial twin are reversed.
But that would bring in GR, which is unfair to you because you stayed within SR. But if you will ever want to bring GR into the matter, that's what I will be pointing at.

The other problem I already mentioned, and can be formulated within SR only: the total effect of time dilation is independent of acceleration per se. The effect is entirely proportional to speed by travel time.

To see this, consider three twins:
The Earth twin stays on Earth as before, and two travelling twins depart at the same time by accelerating to the same speed in the same manner. One of the travelling twins stops at some point by decelerating in some way, while the other twin keeps on travelling some more, until he decelerates to a stop in the same way his other twin did, and accelerates towards home. The twin who stopped mid-way, as soon as he is intercepted by the twin travelling home, accelerates towards home in the same way as the other one did, and decelerate both in the same way as they arrive on Earth.
The twin who travelled more will have experienced more time dilation, despite the fact that both twins have experienced the same accelerations.

You can entertain yourself with more variations, more twins, different accelerations. Just draw a triangle in a spacetime diagram and a line somewhere in the middle of it, and draw all the curvy lines you want for a fourth twin. Results vary. What principle ties it all together?

If you're smart you will bring up proper time as a definitive answer. But acceleration is not present in the definition of proper time, only velocity (in the gamma factor).

>>15552506
You keep ignoring what I said. It's not the acceleration. It's the fact that the other twin has to change frames of reference to return to compare ages (otherwise the situation is symmetric). Acceleration is only a vehicle through which he cannot say he is in an inertial frame of reference.
>you're of the type that settles on absolute acceleration
That's a meaningless statement. The magnitude of acceleration is irrelevant but acceleration is still absolute, always, so absolute acceleration is just redundant.
I don't know why you're even bringing acceleration into this. You are trying to bait me into invoking acceleration by stating something as if it was controversial and me correcting you that it isn't.

>>15552573
You can eliminate all acceleration by replacing them with an alien travelling towards Earth from outer space that intercepts the outgoing twin and notices they have the same age as they pass each other.
Now all three, the Earth twin, the travelling twin and the alien, have only ever been in inertial frames of reference, but the age of the alien as he passes the Earth twin will be the same as the travelling twin.

>>15552600
And how would the alien know they were the same age, given they are in different reference frames and he would see the twin time dilated.

>>15550854
>photons are bullshit
>why? because I, a random 4chan schizoid, said so

>>15552609
They meet at the same point and compare biological clocks as they pass by each other.

>>15552612
But they're flying past each other at a fraction of c. If they're not in the same reference frame then there is no absolute simultaneity. The alien may conclude they are the same age, the twin may conclude otherwise.

>>15550544
i see an obvious curve

>>15552652
Not significant. And it was repeated many times at increasing precision. Nothing.

>>15552652
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
It's even more obvious in DC Miller's data.

>>15552687
>Not significant.
Nothing ever is for you.

>>15552687
The laser cavity "replications" are entirely different experiments (testing frequency instead of phase). DC Miller's experiment was a replication, and it found an even stronger signal.

>>15552689
>>15552693

And yet the half dozen people who tried to replicate Miller's claim at altitude found nothing (Milchelson, Picard, Joos...). And Miller's excuse for this (very specific drag) was also disproven by Hammar. People even reanalyzed his data, and showed that there is no signal. It turns out having your experiment in the air instead of in a vacuum chamber makes you very sensitive to changes in temperature.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955RvMP...27..167S/abstract

>>15552717
Michelson's experiment was in the air too, so according to your logic that data should be thrown out as well.

>>15552790
That's not my logic. One has to correctly account for the systematics when analysing the data and assessing the significance. Miller did not. Michelson's experiment was not open in the same way, Miller actually used this an an excuse for why Michelson found nothing. He even said that using a stable basement rather thann his shed would mess with the aether, a claim refuted by Hammer.

>>15552896
MM didn't control for temperature.

>>15550796
You are being too pedantic. If there is no aether, and gravity is the curvature of space time due to the presence of mass or energy, than what is curving?
Also Einstein thought there was an aether

>>15551063
If aether doesn't exist than what is curving in space time when mass or energy is present?

>>15550578
>That was one failed experiment.
It's a shame of western civilization. It will always have a null result due to the simple fact that hardwired reflectors will make a relative arrangement. That has exact delta null when a signal goes both ways. This is easy easy to grasp, repeatable in your bathtub and only brainwashed retarded idiots are not able to see that simple.

>>15553021
thing.

>>15552600
>>15552506
SR is mathematically consistent so you're not going to discover a contradiction by applying the Lorenz transformation over and over.
That doesn't mean you need to accept that SR describes reality, but as a mathematical structure it is consistent.

>>15551834
>Lorentz supported
>Dirac came to believe
>Bell became a proponent
None of that matters. They're not saints and we're not dealing in revealed truth.
All that matters is hypothesis, calculation, and experiment.

>>15551652
>mediumless waves in an immaterial spacetime
You're fixated on the analogy of "wave" that was used in the 19th century. EM radiation is not a "wave" like you think. It's a sequence of eternally self-generating electromagnetic fields.

>>15553047
>eternally self generating electromagnetic fields
Lmao so to get rid of aether we have to assume in its place are numerous discrete perpetual motion devices?

>>15553054
All it requires is that empty space doesn't dissipate EM fields. You're already asking the same of aether - that it does not dissipate mechanical waves in itself, that it has no internal friction. How does it do that?

>>15553054
It's epicycles on top of epicycles, isn't it? Crazy how they think this has any explanatory power.

>>15553066
How does radio work with the aether? Can you design a radio transmitter using aether theory?

>>15553071
NTA but radio is fake, but that's a subject for another thread.

>>15553071
Why do you keep asking dumb non-sequitur questions? You're implying radio transmission has some mysterious element that is unaccounted for in aether theory but has an answer in spacetime theory when that's obviously untrue.

>>15553077
Design a radio transmitter using the mathematics of aether theory.
Antenna length, power source, resonance, everything. You're not allowed to use Maxwell's Equations.
Ok go

>>15553082
>You're not allowed to use Maxwell's Equations.
Maxwell's equations implicitly assume the existence of the aether. If you're going to try to make an argument to "deboonk" something you hate you should at least understand the topic first.

>>15553090
So in effect you're using electromagnetism, but you're applying an interpretation in terms of mechanical disturbances of a medium.
How does this all work mathematically? Do you have a complete mathematical model?

>>15553099
>So in effect you're using electromagnetism, but you're applying an interpretation in terms of mechanical disturbances of a medium.
I would be using the original outlook on the topic by Maxwell, from which he derived his equations, yes.
>How does this all work mathematically? Do you have a complete mathematical model?
I see you've never read what you claim to understand. Try some Maxwell.

>>15553082
>>15553099
Have you ever read anything written by Maxwell? ALL his equations are derived from the aether model and he specifically used the word 'aether' several times in his works.

You obviously don't know who Maxwell was.

>>15553099
>How does this all work mathematically? Do you have a complete mathematical model?
Yes, try reading Maxwell.

>>15553116
>>15553101
So where does your theory differ in its predictions from standard electromagnetism?
Can you explain the fixed speed of light, derivable from Maxwell's equations?
Or do you prefer not to think about that?

>>15553124
>So where does your theory differ in its predictions from standard electromagnetism?
"Standard" electromagnetism is an aether theory. Non-aether theories are diverging from the original material that underpins all the equations we use today.

>>15553126
That's cool
Can you explain the fixed speed of light?

>>15553124
>Can you explain the fixed speed of light, derivable from Maxwell's equations?
Tell me you haven't read Maxwell without telling me you haven't read Maxwell.

>>15553128
So you can't.

>>15553134
I could, but I like seeing you contort into knots out of ignorance.

>>15553071
>>15553082
>>15553099
>>15553124
It's just hilarious how you guys use aether-based theories and formulas every single day without even knowing it or believing the aether actually exists...because, you know, it just werks.

>>15550544
fpbp
>>15552652
and it is a significant difference, because?

>>15553163
They really don't know anything about what they believe.

>>15550530
Physicists can't help you, Aether is an hyper dimensional matter, they can't even experiment on super string theory.

quackativity pseuds in full effect itt. start with Plato OP you faggot

>>15551737
jfc this video gave me a headache. do people actually believe this restarted shit? They act like the person on the planet is stationary and the planet is not in motion? nothing in nature is stationary, everything is always moving

>>15551539
define a "field." I am guessing you want to refer to "quantum foam" which is .... what?

>>15553221
A field is defined by its effects, same as aether is.

>>15551053
this not peer reviewed

>>15553255
It's correct, which is the only thing that matters.

>>15553257
if it's correct then try to publish it in a physics journal

>>15553075
Now THIS is schizo posting

>>15553255
>>15553262
It is peer-reviewed, and it's published in Physics Essays.

>>15553238
....... no

>>15553010
>then what is curving
Spacetime, you dumb fuck.

Would aether be governed by Navier-Stokes?

>>15553306
Oh nice. Schizo doubter BTFO'd.

>>15553362
The aether explains gravity very simply as a pushing force due to changes in aether density gradients near celestial objects. Newton wrote about this and Le Sage showed that pushing gravity obeys the inverse square law. It's a much simpler (and more accurate) model than "spacetime".

>>15553383
you should switch the word 'schizo' for 'highly intelligent truth-teller'

>>15553395
Maxwell also had purely mechanistic models of the aether which he used to develop the theories of electromagnetism which we still use today.

>>15553401
This guy >>15553255 doesn't seem highly intelligent to me. He seems like an average midwit or lackwit who doesn't know enough to recognize science when he sees it.

>>15553406
I wasn't talking about him

>>15553423
If you mean Rapport then yeah he's a genius. IDK why anyone would call him schizo, his worst sin is asking for commentary on his paper online before he published it.

>>15552618
How do you think particles collide in SR? They meet at the same point in space at the same time with different velocities. Is a single particle collision subject to relativity of simultaneity? Please open up a book on SR before defending it.

>>15553038
>SR is mathematically consistent so you're not going to discover a contradiction by applying the Lorenz transformation over and over.
>That doesn't mean you need to accept that SR describes reality, but as a mathematical structure it is consistent.
Same thing I said upthread. >>15551721
>Lorentz Ether Theory (Lorentz's theory of ether, for which the Lorentz transformation was formulated) and Special Relativity (Einstein's 1905's reinterpretation of LET) have the same exact empirical content, because they contain the same mathematics, so they can't be distinguished by experiment. You can differentiate them by philosophical difficulties, which for SR are legion.
The same thing that always happens when mentioning these paradoxes happened:
People don't understand the point being made, want to show off how well trained they are. Then they trip over themselves and it's your fault for tricking them, of course. Or they deny logic in order to save their interpretation of the theory.

The point being made was exactly that LET, same mathematics different interpretation, has an easier, more direct explanation for the paradoxes than SR, and we'd free ourselves from "endless disputation of relativistic paradoxes" if we picked the first over the second.

>>15553127
>Can you explain the fixed speed of light?
The speed of sound is fixed in air, water, solid rock, and any other material you can think of, like lightspeed in the aether.
But it's not actually fixed, it varies due density and pressure of the medium, like lightspeed in a gravitational field.

>>15553378
Yes. And you can emulate electrodynamics in a fluid by deriving Maxwell's equations from Navier-Stokes.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article-abstract/10/6/1428/253842/Analogy-between-the-Navier-Stokes-equations-and?redirectedFrom=fulltext

This is not surprising, because Maxwell derived his equations from a fluid mechanical model.

>>15553541
True. Is there any aether equations currently that I could get some solutions from? That might be a lot to ask for but I'm curious of any solutions that can be tested for, even if its just an equation of motion.

>>15552997
I never said it did, it's how one analyses the data. By nature of being in a basement and having a cover it was much less sensitive to it.

>>15553519
>How do you think particles collide in SR?
We're not talking about a collision, were talking about syncing clocks.

>>15553588
They pass over the same point in spacetime so they're able to instantaneously synchronize their clocks. Or equivalently, notice that their clocks read the same time.
Being in the same place at the same time in absolutely simultaneous in SR, or collisions couldn't happen.

This pointless diatribe is strengthening my original point.

>>15553620
But they don't, or they would colide. And there is no instantaneous. The reading on the clock proigates at the speed of light, by the time it reaches the alien the clock has changed.

>>15553569
Given that the equations of the aether are just those of fluid dynamics, I can only suggest you run a hydrodynamic simulation and plot the hydrodynamic E and B fields in different flow velocities.

>>15553626
Now you're being retarded on purpose.

>>15553629
Oh look, another hard-hitting intellectual response. Can you only parrot what you heard on YouTube?

>>15553634
Do you think that physics is more about memorizing trivias and gotchas of different mathematical theories to win in hypothetical debates or correctly describing the natural world in the easiest way possible? You're sacrificing logic on the altar of special relativity.
If I contrived an example where, say, the spaceships had sticks coming out of them emitting and receiving timing signals, and the ends of said sticks grazed over each other as the spaceships passed by each other, allowing for a comparison of clock timings and noting that they are the same (no sync required), you'd soon say that that doesn't count because aliens and spaceships don't exist after all.

The entire point of the discussion is that in LET you don't need any of this mental masturbation. Light clocks tick slow because the apparent local speed of light is slower.

>>15553659
> Light clocks tick slow because the apparent local speed of light is slower.
And so how in LET do you determine the rest frame of the aether? How do you know which clock ticks slower?

>>15553680
Read the thread.

>>15553691
I have. But there's lots of inconsistency, lots of discussion on drift experiments but these can't detect a Lorentz aether and so it's rather pointless to argue the results. How do you know which twin is dilated?

>>15553694
>>15551721

>>15553707
Are you implying that you simply assume the aether is comoving with earth? If it's so simple compared to SR them it should be easy to explain.

>>15553711
In LET you assume you are at rest and deal with the systematic errors of that assumption.

>>15553730
So it's actually not trivial to know which twin is dilate then?

>>15553742
Yeah, in LET you're limited to assert only one of the inertial reference frame is truly at rest, as in SR.
But LET is emergent from classical Newtonian mechanics, so there is a clear physical explanation as to why that is: slower local apparent speed of light due to motion relative to the aether and systematic error.

You can confuse yourself in the same way in water and air. Will you claim that water and air don't exist?

>>15553755
So when you said:
>The entire point of the discussion is that in LET you don't need any of this mental masturbation.
It's actually not the case. In both SR and LET it's the change in velocity to return which breaks the symmetry and defines which twin is slower when the come back. One is not simpler than the other, they are equivalent.

>>15553770
In SR you can never actually determine who would be older, because it is impossible to tell who has actually accelerated. In all instances when (((scientists))) do these calculations they use the """local frame""" anyways, which is just relativity worshippers way of saying absolute reference frame without admitting that aether is a prerequisite for GR to work in the first place.

>>15553790
It's quite possible to say who accelerated, acceleration is not relative.

>>15553770
Yes, they're mathematically equivalent, but LET has a physical cause for the effect while SR does not. You are thus punishing LET for being more explanatory beyond the mathematical.
Which is why you had to make that absurd deflection of "the spaceships will collide" in our discussion of the twin paradox earlier in the thread: the alien in the ship will have the same age the outgoing twin would have had had he accelerated back towards home, thus disproving that acceleration is anything but a prop for the thought experiment, not a direct cause for the phenomenon of time dilation.

>>15553795
>the alien in the ship will have the same age the outgoing twin
The point you refuse to acknowledge is that synchronisation isn't absolute. They don't have to agree they are the same age. If you ignore that it's pointless. And it's ultimately stupid to argue this point, as they are equivalent. You will have the same issue in LET.

>>15553813
>The point you refuse to acknowledge is that synchronisation isn't absolute. They don't have to agree they are the same age.
Then you simply don't know SR. They are at the same point in spacetime.

>>15553795
>thus disproving that acceleration is anything but a prop for the thought experiment
But the alien doesn't disprove shit. The alien sees the approaching twin as time dilated. More time dilated than Earth. So when he syncs his clock to that twin, there is already some time dilation in the count.

>>15553828
>So when he syncs his clock to that twin, there is already some time dilation in the count.
But the twin has not accelerated at all, neither has the alien. So the discerning cause of who gets time dilated can't be acceleration.

>>15553846
But the clock has. The point is this reversion is where symmetry breaks, it doesn't matter if it's real acceleration or not. In the usual solution it's instantaneous, which is equivalent to this.

>>15553857
>But the clock has.
Nope. Alien and twin have different clocks that by mere chance read the same time as they pass by each other.

>>15553863
The effective clock, Christ.

>>15553866
Lol.

>>15553867
What? In your scenario the alien magically conjures up a clock which is synchronized to a future event. This is meaningless, and just a cop out. And ultimately it's identical to the standard scenario of instantaneous acceleration.

>>15553395
And what causes the aether to be more or less dense around celestial objects?

>>15553876
>And ultimately it's identical to the standard scenario of instantaneous acceleration.
Yes, but without acceleration. You sure are a smart one.

>>15553898
As I said, the standard calculation has instantaneous change in velocity. Actual acceleration not factored it. What breaks the symmetry is the change in direction, which you have too. You have misunderstood what people meant.

>>15551814
again mate i dont need to touch shit to know that i shouldnt build a house or even a doghouse from it

>>15553885
aether is the ying to common matter yang

>>15553901
>As I said, the standard calculation has instantaneous change in velocity.
Yes.
>Actual acceleration not factored it.
Right.
>What breaks the symmetry is the change in direction, which you have too.
Correct.
>You have misunderstood what people meant.
No. There are two camps of relativist. The "acceleration is absolute" camp that solves the twin paradox by upholding the sanctity of bends in spacetime diagrams, which is what you are doing right now, and the "everything, including acceleration, is relative" camp which tends to bring GR into the discussion.
I correctly assessed which camp you were. I predicted that we'd get bogged down in irrelevant philosophical details, because that's what SR is designed to do. I maintain that LET has a physical mechanism for the result while SR has none. I know the math is correct, because it is the same calculation.

>>15553924
>The "acceleration is absolute" camp
Which is still correct in the other scenario, because there is no ambiguity over who swapped over. This changes nothing.

>>15553924
>irrelevant philosophical details,
Much like this thread, arguing for an aether when you accept it is entirely equivalent to SR.

>>15553943
They're equivalent as much elliptical orbits are equivalent to epicycles.

>>15553952
But those aren't mathematically identical, this is.

>>15553885
Aether becomes less dense near celestial bodies because they absorb some of the waves.

>>15553954
Of course they are, by Fourier transform.

>>15553306
>>15553383
Thats a quack website with a extremely low impact factor so of course is the only trash site that that garbage paper will ever be in
In summary it can be dismissed

>>15553978
>cry where's the math where's the evidence all the time
>"here's the math"
>won't even read it

>>15553790
That's false. The same thing happens for twins that are both traveling at some velocity away from Earth and one of them decelerates to stationary relative to Earth and then accelerates back to catch up with the twin. When they meet, the one who was moving at the same velocity in relation to Earth will be older than the one who slowed down. So clearly your idea of time dillation is not equivalent to SR and the solution is not the same.

>>15553908
Even if you perceive it as shit, if you never touch it how could you conclude whether or not it makes for an effective building material?
You're just appealing to your own subjective perception and you admit that. How is that an argument for anything?

>>15553924
There's no "everything, including acceleration, is relative" camp. Who even claims that? Acceleration of a reference frame is not relative and can always be measured by an observer in that reference frame in a non-relative way without having to rely on any external references unlike speed.

>>15553981
They really are pathetic aren't they? No wonder Rapport stopped posting here. He gave his doubters everything they wanted and they chose not to even see it.

>>15550530
What’s the point of lying about it. What’s to gain?

>>15554363
>The same thing happens for twins that are both traveling at some velocity away from Earth and one of them decelerates to stationary relative to Earth and then accelerates back to catch up with the twin. When they meet, the one who was moving at the same velocity in relation to Earth will be older than the one who slowed down.
Can we see the physical experiments done on space traveling twins to verify this?

>>15554652
People lie to advance their careers all the time. We have a replication crisis for a reason.

>>15550530
>Redpill me about the Aether.
Exist, Doppler is proof. But you can learn over here when the sciencescammers are refuted like in the twin paradox they pull something out of their ass which was never part of the formula or theory. They do not care and start to hide the fact that they are idiots, blatantly wrong and useless with their tricks by fogging that in idiotic discussions where they confuse you more. Usually the last resort is appealing "to be fair" which means they have not bear the consequences of their frauds and parasite existence which is sleeping under the bridge in their on pi.. ..

>>15554652
Very simple: If the aether is real then the entire Einstein's theory falls apart and many physicists after him dedicated their lives studying relavity. If the aether comes back to the picture their entire work will be considered worthless and what we call today "modern physics" is all wrong. They certainly don't want that and will fight tooth and nails against any aether theory.

>>15554898
relativity*

>>15554370
>There's no "everything, including acceleration, is relative" camp. Who even claims that?
I guess all the mental wanking about Mach's principle and the equivalence principle by hard relativists is just an inside joke then.

>>15554898
Few anons argued that it's indistinguishable from relativity. So how could aether being real (which would be unprovable by that logic) make Einstein fall apart?

>>15553924
>The "acceleration is absolute" camp
*proper acceleration is absolute
>the "everything, including acceleration, is relative" camp
*coordinate acceleration is relative

>>15550530
the whole heliocentrism, globe earth, big bang stuff are also fake ass theories
but researching aether is a good place to start

>>15557293
>>>/x/

>>15558269
no, this belongs here, but you are free to take secular delusions right to the /x/ board

>>15550530
Watch veritasium video

Called

Why speed of light has never been measured

>>15560394
How would that help OP?

>>15557016
There is absolutely no meaning in the acceleration. Even if this hallucination had the slightest trace of evidence, it shows no effect because the acceleration before the re-meeting is and must negative .

>>15560394
>Why speed of light has never been measured
What about sending a frequency through ether and measure the wavelength (e.g. over phase angle).

>>15561727
That seems like an interesting experiment.

>>15561727
dont they do that for microwaves or something?
if not just send a microwave oven into """space""" or ""the space station""" but they never will because that would be too easy woudlnt it and disprove like 3 things and get Them defunded

>>15561727
How would that let you measure the speed of light?

>>15553755
Can it explain the twin paradox where a twin orbiting a body passively ends up older than a twin who needs to accelerate constantly to remain stationary in relation to said body and the other twin paradox where a twin who is thrown and then falls due to gravity ends up younger than a twin who has to accelerate to remain stationary in relation to the body?

>>15564139
>the twin paradox where a twin orbiting a body passively ends up older than a twin who needs to accelerate constantly to remain stationary in relation to said body
Assuming the body is a round uniform stationary mass and the twins are at the same altitude, then the real speed of light for the two is faster than at the surface (the medium gets denser away from matter, so lower gravitational potential = faster speed of light) but equal between the two, so they both "age" (according to their light clocks) slightly faster than at the surface (gravitational time dilation).

The orbiting twin is not stationary wrt the medium and he sets up a Lorentz frame by rigging his units as to ensure the invariance of the wave equation. This is achieved by simply assuming that c is constant and isotropic. It coincides with reality when stationary.
He is wrong in his assumption, so his clock runs slower by a factor of gamma to account that the apparent isotropic speed of light for him is actually (real c)*gamma (relativistic time dilation).
As a result, he "ages" slower than the stationary twin according to their clocks.

The stationary twin ends up younger.

>the other twin paradox where a twin who is thrown and then falls due to gravity ends up younger than a twin who has to accelerate to remain stationary in relation to the body
As the twin is thrown, he spends more time farther away from the mass than the stationary twin, so in a lower gravitational potential, in a more dense part of the medium, with a faster real speed of light, so his clock runs faster.
The effect is mitigated by his speed during the movement, which slows down the apparent speed of light as in the example above.
If you assume that the second effect is negligible or anyway less than the first, then he ends up "younger" than his twin.

You can solve every time dilation puzzle by assuming faster velocity and more gravity = slower speed of light.

>>15551846
>and has nothing to do with classical locality
no, it's the same thing. the principle of locality obeyed by SR is the same one that has always been considered (continuity of action, CoA) until bell, whose definition of locality has very little to do with CoA.

>The same goes for "causality", which has nothing to do with classical causality
unclear if this is the case.

>You're supposed to accept non-determinism
who is?

>QM cannot be Einstein-local and Einstein-causal and deterministic at the same time.
QM is already known to be wrong (internally inconsistent, and incomplete)

>>15564273
>no, it's the same thing. the principle of locality obeyed by SR is the same one that has always been considered (continuity of action, CoA) until bell, whose definition of locality has very little to do with CoA.
So you agree with me, that the definition of locality has shifted, yet this sentence begins with no.

>unclear if this is the case.
Very clear, because classically clocks don't measure time, they measure their period, and everything happens everywhere simultaneously, regardless of whether, when, in what order and how distorted you get to see the effect.

>who is?
You.

>QM is already known to be wrong (internally inconsistent, and incomplete)
k.

>>15565919
>So you agree with me, that the definition of locality has shifted, yet this sentence begins with no.
you were saying something completely different.

>Very clear, because classically clocks don't measure time, they measure their period, and everything happens everywhere simultaneously, regardless of whether, when, in what order and how distorted you get to see the effect.
no idea what you're talking about.

>You.
I will never believe in that rubbish.

>300 posts by bot and retards responding to a bot
The state of this board

>>15551737
>>15551760
>>15551821
>>15552335
As far as I remember twin paradox is solved in GR with ages of twins being equal. There should be something like "let's find out value of integral of proper time along closed contour ... it's zero", which takes too much text and is rarely mentioned in books because of that?
>>15551680
I can understand why you don't like quantum physics but GR seems ok

>>15566087
Your mom is a bot.