Hi Terry,
> IMHO, we will only succeed in tying ourselves into unsolvable knots similar to religious fanaticism if we insist there MUST exist an ABSOLUTE frame of reference. SR, would seem to suggest there ain't no such animal and never was - period. Ah, but that is the key. SR is not based upon physical observations, but assumptions. It's claim that there can be no absolute frame of reference is therefore just as much a religious fanaticism as any other unfounded assumption. OTOH, the Aether Physics Model specifically claims that each subatomic particle MUST exist in an ABSOLUTE frame of reference ONLY with the quantum of Aether unit in which it resides. To put it another way, matter does not move through space-time, but rather matter is encapsulated by space-time and space-time moves relative to space-time. Sounds kind of strange at first, until you realize that that is exactly how the rest of the fluid Universe works. A leaf on a calm day merely rests peacefully upon the surface of a river, yet the river flows and carries the leaf with it. The Gulf Stream is a body of water within the Atlantic Ocean, which moves relative to the Sargasso Sea and carries all sorts of particles within its fluid. Dust particles float aimlessly within the atmosphere, as it flows fluid-like around the planet relative to other regions of atmosphere. Is it any surprise that matter would also float within the sea of Aether, each subatomic particle encapsulated by its own quantum of space-time? Here we get both absolute frames of reference and relativity ala Lorentz. Can't ask for better than that. There's a little to please everyone, and it is all based upon empirical constants and data. > The observation does not make any practical sense if extrapolated to include all the rest of the Earthly atoms that have not been interacted with, even though that might seem to be a natural conclusion to draw. Yet, that is exactly what SR claims. Each particle is its own observer. Although, I have often pointed this out as another error in SR theory. If 40 people watch a collision, does the collision then have 40 times the energy it otherwise would have had if there were only one observer? Obviously not. As you correctly deduce, the only observer of importance is the one involved in a collision with the moving particle. But even still, if a single aluminum nucleus were traveling at the speed of light, and its mass approached infinity, according to E=mc^2 the amount of energy in the collision would also be near infinite. This has not been observed. > Such Zen koan-like observations invariably raise the legitimate question as to HOW is it that this extra "mass" can behave in such a fickle manner. After all - WHO REALLY POSSESSES THE EXTRA MASS!!!! IMHO, the extra "mass" really doesn't exist per-say, but rather the extra "mass" is simply being used as an expedient vehicle in order to make the SR equations make sense. But perhaps I have exceeded my area of expertise on the matter. ;-) The concept of "extra mass" is meaningless. Mass is merely a dimension. Mass is not a substance that can increase or decrease in value of itself. As an analogy, if we join two ten feet long pipes together, we get twenty feet of pipe, not twenty feet of length. The dimension of length did not increase, but the overall value of the pipes' length increased. This will be a sticking point for many people, but if you are interested in the subtleties of Zen Buddhism, you should have no difficulty grasping the difference between the dimension of length and the thing it measures. The same goes for mass. There is the dimension of mass, and when it is given a value, it becomes the measurement of inertia. Dave
