Peter
"The big problem.."
The big problem is that Einstein defined what SR constituted, but most people are defining it as something else, ie 1905.
I look forward to your attempt to prove how my essay is contradictory, I can take a guess now as to why you think so.
Paul
Avtar,
Thank you. I'm glad the kinetic basis for 'Quantum Relativity' and it's importance is understood by somebody at least, and I greatly look forward to reading your paper, which it sounds may be very consistent.
Peter
Frank,
I agree we hide from realism, such as any link between the many known qualities of the ISM and the likes of the Higgs field. I think very close to 'lossless propagation' but not quite, which may derive a degree of redshift to finally consign increasing expansion to where it belongs.
Yes, I agree entirely about Mars. They've also lost many others and nearly lost Huygens-Cassini last year. the cosmological model is clearly hopelessly wrong, but nobody dares tamper with the assumptions it's built on. The Mars ionosphere is weak compared to Earth's but they ignore it at their peril!
Peter
Thanks Eckard for the typo proofing. (readers see below). Also P8 Para's 2-3 make more sense as;
Assumption 7. 'Ballistic' Stellar Aberration. A hidden implicit sub-assumption is that the barycentric 'medium' does not exist, which confounds theory. If Lodge had known of the IAU Barycentric frame, and of KRR, in 1893 he would not have used his lab to represent the ECI frame, incorrectly disallowing Stellar Aberration from waves. Lodge assumed the 'path' of a 'ray' entering a spinning glass disc is 'dragged' by the glass, so giving aberration in the wrong direction (aberration is ahead of our orbital path). However, the rest frame of the glass, NOT the lab represents an observer on Earth. The optical axis is then reversed as in KRR8 (see Fig.4), not needing ballistics, and with a quantum mechanism deriving the SR postulates.
A connected assumption is of a single Earth centred frame. Kinetic only aberration uses the non-rotating ionospheric ECI frame, but there are TWO! Atmospheric refraction (greatest at longer optical paths near the horizon)13 and an additional kinetic rotational vector explains why local surface light speed is c/n. This 2nd 'frame' resolves the residual errors of laser lunar ranging and stellar aberration.14 Annihilation can't be 100% over short distances, leaving the birefringence found by Raman (1921) and explaining scintillation ('twinkling'), ellipticity and consistently low but non-zero interferometer results.
Peter
Edwin,
I do like the term "significant essay", thank you most humbly. I also agree you've picked out some very salient points.
In pure physics terms I think it important that we recognise the importance of assimilating the two ignored optical effects (page 8) into current theory. In combination they then allow the complete unification of physics in terms of logically explaining the postulates or SR directly with a quantum mechanism. I perhaps didn't labour this point enough as it has been consistently missed. Does it not come across?
And the illogicality and causality issue with the 'ballistic' refraction model, which would imply 'ripping' a section out of the causal wave plane and 'hinging' it so some light has to stop and other parts do more than c to 'catch up.' (Fig 3). Do the mega implications of that not emerge clearly?
I've just found my 'mutual exclusivity' axiom echoes Boscovich's 'axiom of Impenetrability', which is nice.
I was also pleased to find high consistency with your again excellent, essay, though yours is as densely packed as mine and I need a further read to properly extract all it's meaning.
Best of luck.
Peter
Vijay,
Thanks, increased density of dielectrics certainly occurs closer to massive bodies, and reduces em wave speed, but the main resolution of the anomalies and paradoxes emerges from the kinetic element. This has been 'hiding' behind Fresnel's n and poor ontological thought processes.
None the less It seems our theses are consistent and I look forward to reading yours.
Peter
Vladimir,
Thank you. Nothing indeed does not exist. I look forward to your further comments after your studies. I can probably provide more links if needed.
Yes, both GRIN lenses and Phase Array radar (etc.) systems are highly analogous with my 'rotation' and Figs (I assume you meant 3B and 4.). I didn't have room to include a reference, but for anyone interested an easy intro is here; http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an14.en.html
This blows the whole assumptive basis of 'light Rays', 'light paths' and ray vectors' out of the water as not causal on refraction. This then allows the logic of physics to emerge. Indeed we have not yet found any actual mechanism or complete intuitive explanation for refraction! Yet most physicists will say 'yes of course we know how it works!!'
I think your essay may be the perfect 'previous chapter' to mine, and I'm impressed you resisted the temptation to cram your beautiful overview with too much, which I fear I have.
Best of luck
Peter
Joe
I hope the second meaning of the title also emerged. I also tried to make the last line as comprehensible as the first so I hope you got it? (See Frank's comments above). I'm not sure I ever understood any of Seinfeld so you are at an intellectual advantage.
I agree entirely about "one REAL unit of everything" particularly time. Paul seemed to miss the below too, so I'll elucidate, by analogy;
You and 2 mates synchronise 3 clocks, one takes one a long way away. Each is ticking at the same REAL time, so let's say they flash once a second. Now the distant one approaches you at half light speed. Your mate with it checks his watch and it is definitely running at the same unchanged speed, but Lo! The flashes of light that you observe as the clock approaches you are LESS than one second apart! What foul trickery is this? it is not. You are not seeing REAL time, because you cannot comply with the rules of 'Proper Time' (to do so you need to be 'moving' at the same speed as the clock).
Your other mate now flies off in the other direction at half c. His clock still emits the flashes at REAL 1 second intervals, yet, aghast! they are now received by you at much longer intervals. Is time now 'dilated'!!??
Of course not. You are again not seeing REAL time because the position of the emitter changes between emissions and light has a finite propagation speed irrespective of the emitter. i.e. I am introducing 'APPARENT' time, in ALL CASES except where the observer is at rest with the emitter. Otherwise the flash sequence is 'Doppler shifted'. In reality there is only ever ONE absolute time! We can simply find it for any clock moving at v relative to us, the observer, by adding or subtracting v. Your kinetic reference is then always your own 'rest' state of inertial motion K.
Is that not far more simple and comprehensible than Seinfeld and the LT?
Peter
James
I'm humbled by your appreciation. I see science and humanities as simply aspects of one nature with a false division. I'm also making the point (Edwin spotted) that philosophy and science are both worse off for complete divorce.
But the main thrust is the content and evidence. I hope you do labour a little to rationalise the over dense points and massive implications. I've rewritten the penultimate page "Assumption 7; Aberration' paragraphs (3rd post down at the top here) to hopefully make more sense. (I'd 'over pruned' it to meet the limit!).
I recall I liked your effort last year and will try to read this years soon.
best wishes
Peter
Wilhelmus.
I was called back to Sirius B9 I'm afraid to explain why man's making such poor progress deciphering nature. Nearly had to give up, but luckily your post was just in time. There is hope for us! Well done. (Also moved house, worked and went sailing).
I agree about the ~Planck length, otherwise we have infinite regression of frames, but I do not guess what we have no evidence of. I don't consider that science. I will just define evidenced parameters. As you know from Architects training ultimate free thinking doesn't mean just inconsitent speculation.
Do comment on my evidenced proposition that causality is breached by mainstream assumption about refraction, exposed when considering a plane wavefront. The full ontological construction of Relativity derived direct from a quantum mechanism is almost complete now, but can't all be jammed into a short essay. Unfortunately beliefs and assumptions will probably keep it hidden from most in any case.
I wish you luck with your essay and look forward to reading it.
Peter
Hi Peter,
:) always in the rational road. You know, it is our only one solution after all. The determinism is a parameter so important to have these rational datas.The sciences are exact and precise.The good universities teach the foundamentals. The rest is vain !
The medecines must be rational, like in the chemistry or the biology or the physics or the maths....
In fact , this universal 3D objectivity is essential for all correct axiomatizations of these foundamental laws.
If not, we have pseudo sciences. Can we teach false sciences ? no of course , fortunaly for our technologies and models furthermore.
I wish you all the best in this contest Peter.
Regards
Paul.
"..the same reference must be used to formulate all those calibrations". Yes, I am only too aware you take the pre Galilean view of this, which is of course also pre Einsteinian. The central tenet of the Galilean revolution was intellectual holism. Meaning that there were many equivalent reference frames (matter with states of motion and non-zero dimensions) and they were all equivalent. i.e. each one is a 'rest frame' for the purposes of the measurement of light speed.
Einstein (and I know you now feel yourself a lone expert but remember others have studied his work and thoughts for many decades and not quite all have it wrong), set out to explain the very many confounding astronomical and interferometry findings he set out as postulates. He thus went a step further in using all kinetic states as representing rest frames. Each rest frame IS a local reference for phenomena travelling within that frame, i.e.= c. This explains observation. Your single reference point seems poorly considered as it infers some relevant single 'absolute' frame, which is what we escaped from courtesy of Gallileo. I'm not sure you really wish to revert, but you should understand that this is the inevitable simple consequence of your assertion of a single reference. 'Kinetic nesting' is an important concept to grasp, equivalent to Einstions moving spaces s within S. (1953). Investigating the PDL I discuss would help greatly.
I do agree with your improved explanation of 'stillness' above, by which you really meant lack of acceleration (change' of kinetic state) which of course you must consider that we did all well know. The 'stillness' as you call it is always the consistent reference point. Your comment only indicates you have not comprehended the complex relationships explored in my essay and should probably read it more slowly (that doesn't go for you alone of course so please don't take offence). Do revert when you have.
Best wishes
Peter
Steve.
Many thanks. I value your rationalist view, and am very impressed that in discussing my essay about rotating spherical entities and nested spaces moving within spaces, that you did not use the word 'sphere' once!
Yet I disagree that even the best universities are just teaching the rational. It is becoming clearer to me that they are also indoctrinating young physicists to be unable to think conceptually or accept challenges to assumptions they are taught.
The last winner of the Nobel in Chemistry was called a pseudo scientist when he lost his job and home 30 years ago for proposing what he has just at last won the Nobel for discovering. The USChem Soc President was challenged and said "that's how science is done." He was right. And it should not be!
I hope you liked the sonnet, but the science is important.
Peter
Peter,
You are welcome. You are impressed ? you have not still all seen you know.It is the begining of the spherical revolution you know Peter.
That said , I agree about the universities.Some universities are good, others no.It is always the same problems in fact, the vanity and the monney Peter.Or perhaps even the frustration of the searcher.
But fortunally the rational roads are and shall be always our best choices.
The system is corrupted and sick Peter, it is not new.But fortunally it exists real universalists, and rationalists and foundamentalists in the high spheres !!!
The well wins always Peter ! the monney is just an error you know .
spherically yours :)
Peter
"Yes, I am only too aware you take the pre Galilean view of this"
My view, as you term it, is the definition of referencing. It has nothing to do with pre-Einstein, indeed, he stuck relentlessly to this principle. This is demonstrable in his various definitions of the principle which become more and more generic. For example, here is the last one in SR & GR:
"By application of arbitrary substitutions of the Gauss variables x1, x2, x3, x4, the equations must pass over into equations of the same form; for every transformation (not only the Lorentz transformation) corresponds to the transition of one Gauss co-ordinate system into another". (Einstein 1916 SR & GR section 28)
Or:
"That in general, Laws of Nature are expressed by means of equations which are valid for all co-ordinate systems, that is, which are covariant for all possible transformations". (Einstein, Foundation of GR, 1916, section 3)
The point is that to make any judgement, there must be a reference. That reference can be anything. But once selected, it must be consistently used, otherwise the judgements are not comparable. That is what referencing is.
His point was (or at least Lorentz's point was) that under certain circumstances, matter and light were affected (dimension altered and light no longer travelled in straight lines at a constant speed). And if this was so, then one needed to take account of it when making judgements (ie referencing). The cause of this dimensional alteration also caused a change in momentum. So something (which includes light) that was not moving in a uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion would be exhibiting the effects. In other words, changing momentum was an indicator that this newly discovered, and really small effect, was occurring.
"Each rest frame IS a local reference for phenomena travelling within that frame"
Yes, it is, that is precisely what I am saying. Because it is then not a reference for the 'next frame'. To include 'the next frame' in your comparison, you must maintain the reference first selected, not keep 'switching references'. Or establish a new reference from which both the first and the next can be referenced against a consistent reference. Furthermore, the concept of 'rest' is irrelevant. The only problem with 'not-at rest' is that, according to them, dimension alteration is occurring. So having recognised that, calibrations can still be effected, they just become more difficult.
"This explains observation"
No it does not. Observation (or indeed any form of sensing) is irrelevant. Physical existence is not affected by sensing. Light is a physically existent phenomenon. It travels. Sometimes it hits a physically existent phenomenon known as eye, most times it does not. The physical circumstances are the same, whether in its travel it hits an eye or a brick wall. It is just that eyes are the front end of a sensory system that can utilise the light, bricks cannot.
"your improved explanation of 'stillness' above"
It was not an improved explanation, I pointed out to you that I used the words "in effect". In the context of maintaining the character count, which I singularly blew by about a page, though I only had 9 pages, a degree of cryptic writing is bound to occur throughout. And the 'stillness' is not inherently the reference point. Physically there is no form of reference that is somehow detached from physical reality, and can therefore be used as some omnipotent reference.
Paul
Paul
What in your mind is a transformation? In the STR it is a transformation between inertial reference frames. That means 'different' inertial frames. That was the whole point of the Galilean revolution.
There are two aspects here which are indeed confusing. You cannot validly use one reference frame to compare 'moving phenomena' in your own frame then accelerated into another, and expect not to find different characteristics.
By the same logic you cannot record the vector of a moving object in your own frame, then accelerate into another frame, look back at them and expect to find the same vector.
I agree that if you wish to compare the apparent CHANGE resulting from such frame transitions then you indeed need just one reference point. You will not however find the laws of physics or c apply to phenomena in a different frame! This is indeed still confusing to mainstream science,(i.e. Google 'non-linear optics' and Fraunhofer radiation)
This proper 'frame' conception was the fundamental advancement of Galilean relativity on which the STR is based. Perhaps you did not study that massive conceptual change before studying the STR? But it is good to come at it afresh because it's implications and reality are poorly understood and many effects not assimilated into theory (Just read p6 of USNO Circular 179). This is what my paper addresses and rationalises though the concepts are kinetically complex.
To try in a nutshell; The speed of a pulse of light within a bus is a REAL speed wrt the bus. The pulse speed wrt you in a car passing by (another frame) is only an 'apparent' speed. The two are not the same in value or category.
And Einstein did well know his 1905 conception was flawed, often saying as much, so we must remember that just quoting that is only ever a part of his own part of the whole story, not quite in the category of the 10 commandments!
Peter
Peter
Transformation is the adjustment necessary to compensate for the (alleged) alteration (in dimension) so that two entities can be considered equivalent. Or it could be the amount that any given entity has (allegedly) altered, which I guess is the same thing. I would have to go back through quotes to pin the use of this concept down to what they intended it to be. But the Tour is on soon, and Bradley should nail it once and for all today. Priorities, priorities.
SR only involves 'inertial' entities, ie constant movement. Relative stillness, because everything is physically moving. But the only motion in SR, according to Einstein's definition of it, is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion. SR is Gallilean. The following quote will suffice:
"provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion with respect to K; all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity. In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the following statement: All bodies of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be their state of motion." Einstein SR & GR 1916 section 18.
"There are two aspects here..."
The practical difficulties of effecting a calibration are irrelevant to the logic of physical existence. A reference is necessary, whatever reference is selected must then be maintained in order to ensure comparability of the outcomes. It is not "apparent CHANGE" being measured by referencing, it is the physical change. It is then just ascribed a value from the measuring system, which is meaningless. It is the actual differential (or change) that is important. This is physically bigger than that, this is faster than that, etc, by an order. Its measured speed, which has to be wrt the reference is, of itself, meaningless.
I did not study SR as such. What fascinated me (ex policeman) was 1) what was special, 2) why those words "only apparently irreconcilable" (page 1 1905). And he provides the answer in section 7 SR & GR 1916. [See my post in my blog 13/7 11.24].
Para 5 section 7:
"In view of this dilemna there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity".
Para 6 section 7:
"At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibilitiy between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later. In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the special theory of relativity".
"The speed of a pulse of light" is a function of whatever one uses as a reference. It will be one speed if referenced to the snail moving across my garden, and another is referenced to the Andromeda Galaxy. What is occurring physically is an entirely different issue, ie its start speed, how it maintains speed, what interferes with it en route, in any given specific circumstance.
"And Einstein did well know his 1905 conception was flawed"
He did indeed, and that is why he wrote "only apparently irreconcilable" when presenting the two hypotheses. The issue being that they could not co-exist. Light was in one circumstance (ie in vacuo), bodies were not (ie dimension alteration occurred). In ST everything is 'in vacuo' (ie there is no gravitational force). In GR everything is not (ie there is gravitational force). What is special is that no gravitational force is assumed in order to invoke SR. Which is rather special, since gravitational force exists in the real physical reality. If you read what I have written, which is of course not my essay, and my posts on this particular subject, I do not just quote from 1905.
Paul
Paul
Your LT definition is; "..the adjustment necessary to compensate for the (alleged) alteration (in dimension) so that two entities can be considered equivalent. Or it could be the amount that any given entity has (allegedly) altered, which I guess is the same thing."
The number of different definitions never cease to amaze me. I agree yours may be almost as valid as many, except that you rather miss the key point; You don't even refer to what caused the 'alteration' you refer to!
Einstein's view (argue if you wish but you'd be wrong) was the same as Lorentz at al, and indeed Galileo, that the 'transformation' IS that alteration itself, which is a kinetic change, from one kinetic state of uniform motion K to another K'. (1905 pt3, +1911 etc.) What you discuss are purely the 'effects OF' that transformation between frames. Cause and effect must not be confused!
You really must study Galilean Relativity to understand the 'scientific environment' Einstein was in to stand any chance of truly understanding what was in his head, thus being able to unravel the mess preventing Unification.
We must consider both the effect on the entity making the transformation as viewed by an observer also making the transformation (co-variance) and also the apparent effect observed by an observer staying in the initial rest frame! there are two clear categories which must not be confused (and often are).
And I do not just mean the quote you gave when I said he knew he had not found the answer in SR. As you do like your quotes; I've passed you some before but there are many more which betray his thoughts;
"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
"..a theory relating to the elementary electrical structures is inseparable from the quantum theory problems. So far also relativity theory has proved ineffectual in relation to this most profound physical problem of the present time."
"I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories."
"Nobody is sure of following the correct road, me the least".
"We still do not know 1000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us."
"A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels."
"We can't solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity".
"..we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (1940)
"I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find." (1944)
"one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic field theory." (1952)
You have clearly not yet comprehended the kinetic construction of my essay thesis, which I am certain shows his thought above correct. I hope you will try. Do also read the last paragraph of my end notes.
Best wishes
Peter
Peter
1 You did not ask what the cause was. I usually state that in a description of dimension alteration. According to them, the cause was a differential in gravitational forces incurred.
2 Now, there is a set of factors involved, with their presumed attributes and interrelationships, and experiments which may or may not have been valid, with their outcomes which needed interpretation. In all this there is: 1) what actually physically occurs, 2) the extent to which their theory is correct for the right reasons, correct for the wrong reasons, or incorrect. There is also mention of 'translation', in addition to (?) transformation, and first and second order effects.
3 Furthermore, since you refer to it. Section 3 1905 follows on with the mistake incurred at the beginning of this paper. Which is explained in my blog post 11/7 19.33. The 'bottom line' in this section being the derivation of lambda, which for want of a better phrase is the 'all purpose differential factor'. That is, there is deemed to be variance in physical reality, which, because of misconceptualisation, is variously attributed amongst some of the factors involved. But, unsurprisingly, the calibrated variation is the same. In other words, one factor becomes a surrogate for another.
4 However, none of the above matters, in the sense that it is the internal logic of what they state which is the point here. They postulate real physical dimension alteration. The electrodynamics of this is first (Lorentz 1904) explained as revolving around the "intervention of the aether" affecting the "intensity of the molecular forces" which "determines the size and shape of a solid body". It is a plausibility argument given how "electric and magnetic forces act", with the caveat that "since we know nothing about the nature of molecular forces, it is impossible to verify the hypothesis".
5 Over the years this 'mechanism' changes until Lorentz (1904) states: "Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system, moving with a velocity, all electrons are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axes in the direction of motion". Although again there is a caveat: "Our assumption about the contraction of the electrons cannot in itself be pronounced to be either plausible or inadmissible. What we know about the nature of electrons is very little". Poincaré has to introduce (July 1905) the 'Poincaré stresses' in response to criticism, as he had "to suppose a special force which explains at the same time the contraction and the constancy of two of the axes" in order to keep the mechanism 'intact'.
6 [Note the start of section 4 1905 with its reference back to this concept (radius R). That in 1895 Lorentz is referring to 'local time', which derives from Voigt and Doppler. That in 1899 Lorentz is utilising the physically incorrect concept of "only at such small distances, that two particles of matter, acting on each other, may be said to have the same local time". Which was seized on by Poincaré (1904): "Their task was not easy, and if Lorentz has succeeded, it is only by an accumulation of hypotheses. The most ingenious idea is that of local time". Which is then repeated by Einstein in section 1 1905, which is where the explanation, but not necessarily the underlying physics, all goes wrong].
7 The followung quotes from Lorentz (1904) are important:
"The problem of determining the influence exerted on electric and optical phenomena by a translation, such as all systems have in virtue of the Earth's annual motion, admits of a comparatively simple solution, so long as only those terms need be taken into account, which are proportional to the first power of the ratio between the velocity of translation w and the velocity of light c".
"It would be more satisfactory, if it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system. Some years ago, I have already sought to frame a theory of this kind. I believe now to be able to treat the subject with a better result. The only restriction as regards the velocity will be that it be smaller than that of light".
"Thus far we have only used the fundamental equations without any new assumptions. I shall now suppose that the electrons, which I take to be spheres of radius R in the state of rest, have their dimensions changed by the effect of a translation, the dimensions in the direction of motion becoming kl times and those in perpendicular direction l times smaller. In this deformation, which may be represented by... each element of volume is understood to preserve its charge. [This point was subsequently corrected by Poincaré]. Our assumption amounts to saying that in an electrostatic system, moving with a velocity, all electrons are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axes in the direction of motion".
"Strictly speaking, the formula (28) may only be applied in the case of a uniform rectilinear translation. On account of this circumstance- though (29) is always true- the theory of rapidly varying motions of an electron becomes very complicated, the more so, because the hypothesis of para 8 would imply that the direction and amount of the deformation are continually changing... Nevertheless, provided the changes in the state of motion be sufficiently slow, we shall get a satisfactory approximation by using (28) at every instant. The application of (29) to such a quasi-stationary translation... is a very simple matter...Hence, in phenomena in which there is an acceleration in the direction of motion, the electron behaves as if it had a mass m'"
8 In simple language. Everything is moving, in 'addition', the earth is moving. So even 'at rest' (ie constant motion) wrt earth, there is a level of interaction with the particles which comprise the 'ether' which results, via some mechanism, with some degree of dimension alteration. If entities are caused to 'move more', ie their momentum is changing, then there is a further level of dimension alteration. Lorentz 1895: "In reality the molecules of a body are not at rest, but there exists a stationary motion in every "equilibrium state".
9 Leaving aside how the mechanism works, the next question is, what is causing that. And the answer is a differential in gravitational force, because these forces are ever present, entities thereby having an "equilibrium" state when these forces, as incurred, are counterbalanced. So the (additional) effect only occurs if there is an imbalance in that, and continues whilst that circumstance obtains, ie there is a reversion to the 'normal' state when the balance in forces is re-established.
10 Note:
10.1 There is no other cause mentioned. Interaction with particles in the 'ether' do not suddenly involve a 'step change'. That is just concerned with the mechanism through which the outcome (dimension alteration) occurs, and that 'underlying state' of 'disturbance' (dimension alteration) due to motion. Gravitational forces are involved in the ether.
10.2 SR involves no gravitational forces, GR does. Why, otherwise differentiate a "linmiting case", or "special case", unless the variable that is the ultimate cause is gravitational force.
11 SR. Einstein defines its scope thus:
Einstein Foundation of GR 1916, section A, sub sec 3: "the case of special relativity appearing as a limiting case when there is no gravitation."
Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 28: "The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists."
Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 18: "provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion...all these bodies of reference are to be regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity."
Einstein SR & GR 1916, section 22: "From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational fields...A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position...We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."
12 Ether. The important points are:
Einstein (1921) A Brief Outline of the Development of the Theory of Relativity
"The theory [Lorentz] appeared to be unsatisfactory only in one point of fundamental importance. It appeared to give preference to one system of coordinates of a particular state of motion (at rest relative to the aether) as against all other systems of co-ordinates in motion with respect to this one. In this point the theory seemed to stand in direct opposition to classical mechanics, in which all inertial systems which are in uniform motion with respect to each other are equally justifiable as systems of co-ordinates (Special Principle of Relativity)".
"The Special Theory of Relativity owes its origin to this difficulty...This theory originated as the answer to the question: Is the special principle of relativity really contradictory to the field equations of Maxwell for empty space? The answer to this question appeared to be in the affirmative".
"A more searching analysis of the physical significance of space and time rendered it evident that the Galileo transformation is founded on arbitrary assumptions, and in particular on the assumption that the statement of simultaneity has a meaning which is independent of the state of motion of the system of co-ordinates used. It was shown that the field equations for vacuo satisfy the special principle of relativity, provided we make use of the equations of transformation stated below:... [Lorentz]"
"Now in order that the special principle of relativity may hold, it is necessary that all the equations of physics do not alter their form in the transition from one inertial system to another, when we make use of the Lorentz transformation for the calculation of this change. In the language of mathematics, all systems of equations that express physical laws must be co-variant with respect to the Lorentz transformation".
Einstein (1922) Ether and The Theory of Relativity:
"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility".
"To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view".
"What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation".
13 In simple language. Through the misconceptualisation of time, a non-existent variance was introduced which was then used to resolve the "unsatisfactory" aspect, whereby "It [Lorentz theory] appeared to give preference to one system of coordinates of a particular state of motion (at rest relative to the aether) as against all other systems of co-ordinates in motion with respect to this one". That is, it was deemed that the "apparent preference" was just that, apparent. It being no more than a reflection of the differential in 'local time'. And was resolved so long as the Lorentz transformations were applied.
Paul
Hi Peter, sorry for my late reply, I was thrown back on an alpha probability in Total Simultaneity. The wave front you mention is in fact what I describe as the antenna character of our consciousness that is able to receive signals from your wave fronts even if they are not yet conscious awareness (this is only achieved after a certain data procesing transmission delay in our Deterministic causal universe. I changed already 2 times the title of my essay, and you are right 9 pages is NOTHING to explain what is happening on your subjective simultaneity sphere. (all things from my essay)
Wilhelmus