[snip] So it makes far more sense to consider this proof of something that can exist, the aether, than proof of something that can't (all frames being equal and experiencing unequal time dilation equally).[/snip] EXACTLY! Our metrics of time and distance all assume physical objects to limit displacement to 3D.. the Pythagorean basis of Lorentzian formulas is screaming physical displacement 90 degrees to the observers 3D plane. This also ties into the failure of M&M to detect any ether drift because the ether is moving through all 3 spatial dimensions at 90 degrees and therefore contraction normally only occurs when you increase the number of interactions by velocity or gravity well [the Haisch Rhueda analogy of speeding car through a downpour of rain].. I suspect relativistic hydrogen as suggested ny Naudts for the hydrino is actually reducing the rainfall through Casimir suppression and results in less interaction .. from our perspective the contraction would appear symmetrical since we become the near luminal observer as compared to the negative value of "rainfall"/ether in the geometry - that is to say WE are contracting at 90 degrees to a hypothetical nano observer riding the suppressed hydrogen inside the skeletal catalyst or grains of nano powder where of course time and space seems locally normal to the observer. I would guess Lorentzian contraction still obeys the 1 axis rule we have come to accept from the perspective of this nano observer where the entrance to the cavity would seem to shrink farther away increasing the volume of the cavity and allowing more gas atoms to accumulate inside than exterior measurements would seem to indicate possible like a nano TARTUS from DR Who. Since suppression doesn't require near luminal displacement in any spatial dimension the contraction is shared equally in each direction. Just my story and I am sticking to it :_)
From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: >Ok, so time dilation must have occurred for the muon, it moved through the >reference frame of the lab and lasted longer because of it. But the Muon was not conscious, carried no instrumentation and surely had no evidence to offer to indicate that it observed time was seeming to occur more swiftly for it than for the lab.< In my model, the muon did not consider that its life time was any different than at complete rest. It was not time dilated as far as it was concerned. You missed my point, I did not say the muon should observe it's own time to slow down, I said that SR would expect the muon to see the lab as moving at near the speed of light, and it would expect (in SR) to see the lab's clock to be running slow. The only ones measuring the muon time dilation are the observers on Earth. Yes, and what is observing the muons view of how time passes in the Lab? frame No one. Unless muons are conscious but it would be dead, perhaps a seance for the muon could be carried out? To make matters worse, you get the right answer if you consider the muon as observing length contraction of the path that it takes. Then, I had time dilation for one observer and length contraction for the other to contend with. Each process gave a valid seeming answer. I was looking for a hole in SR, but came up empty. Only then did I realize that the operation of the LHC also matched these two nasty calculations. Back to ground zero. Only if you want to accept something logically impossible and indefensible. Time dilation and or length contraction are concepts that originally occurred to those considering movement relative to an aether. So it makes far more sense to consider this proof of something that can exist, the aether, than proof of something that can't (all frames being equal and experiencing unequal time dilation equally). John
