|
Post by Merko on Jan 29, 2016 21:53:39 GMT
After reading the overview, I just wanted to make sure I managed to understand the model clearly.
Do I have it correct in thinking the Aether exerts forces on the dust? I know the model mentions dust is affected as Aether moves. Is this via forces or is the dust traveling along with the Aether?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 30, 2016 9:28:14 GMT
The latter: recall that aether is the fabric of space. An object can remain in the same point in space (and so have no acceleration: meaning a force cannot be applied), but if the aether moves, the object within it must too. Use the cliche analogy of a blanket, which seems to arise in many discussions of relativity. If you pull the blanket, that which is atop the blanket will move as well.
The aether cannot directly exert any force: it has no mass.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Jan 30, 2016 19:08:01 GMT
I am still having trouble wrapping my head around how gravity works in this model due to the movement of Aether. Does Aether continuously flow through the Earth? Why do we accelerate toward Earth?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jan 31, 2016 12:32:10 GMT
The downwards force is caused as aether continually flows towards the low concentration within the Earth. The Earth itself is fixed (as it is subject to flows in opposing directions, meaning a net lack of movement) and we accelerate in the reference frame keeping it fixed because of the flow.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 1, 2016 0:50:19 GMT
If the aether (or space itself as I understand it) flows toward the low concentration within the Earth, how does this cause people or objects to accelerate toward the Earth? As I understand it, acceleration is a change in the amount of distance being covered in an amount of time. When I jump, what accelerates my body toward the Earth as I fall back down?
When one stands on Earth, they are already traveling in a direction away from the Earth (though maintaining the same relative distance to the Earth) through the aether (as the aether is flowing in the opposite direction). Once one begins to move away from Earth from the force of a jump, it cannot be the flow of aether that reduces the velocity of the jump and acclerates it back toward the Earth because the aether does not directly interact with matter. or does it?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 1, 2016 10:41:09 GMT
As I said, when space moves, the object within that point in space must move as well (from a fixed reference point). The only reason we don't notice it at ground level is that we're pulled into the Earth, and the Earth doesn't move, so our feet keep us fixed. When we jump, however, nothing keeps us fixed and the space we exist in moves down, and takes us with it. Aether doesn't directly interact with matter: from the perspective of the aether, nothing in fact happens. We stay at a fixed point. The Earth is not in the same reference frame as aether (due to being kept in place by two opposing flows, and so not moving with it) so from its perspective we move.
You need to get used to thinking of space as a variable, not a fixed, constant field.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 1, 2016 20:52:11 GMT
I think my problem has to do with my understanding of classical mechanics: objects have inertia. They will not change their velocities unless acted upon by an outside force. Possibly you can help me out with these examples. Whenever I consider them, I get stuck.
A person on the surface of the Earth is stationary relative to Earth. Aether is flowing downward into the Earth. This means the person has a constant velocity upward through space. When the person jumps they have accelerated and increased their upward velocity. Now, the difference in upward velocity between the Earth and the person results in an increase between the person and the Earth. What we observe next is a decrease in the person's velocity through space: they fall back down. The Aether was already moving down when the person started their jump and I assume the Aether has not changed in its rate of flow. Yet, there is a change in the person's movement relative to the Earth and relative to the Aether. How?
Another example that pops into my head when I consider this is a ball moving through a vacuum. The ball is stationary to begin with. It will not move. It will remain still relative to the Aether. Now someone pushes it. The ball is now moving with constant velocity relative to the Aether. Relative to the ball, the Aether is moving with an equal and opposite velocity. The ball will continue along such a path with such velocity until stopped correct?
I think if I can reconcile the issues with these examples, I'll begin to grasp the nature of Aether and Earth.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 2, 2016 17:17:25 GMT
An object in a flow of aether is not moving. Remember that aether is the fabric of space: by any meaningful relationship to space, the object is not moving, and so has no velocity. It only has velocity when measured with reference to another object: but playing about with reference frames like that could render anything moving with no force acting. For example, measure the movement of a fence in reference to a car, you could have the car stationary and the fence moving despite the fact no force acts on it.
At the Earth's surface, a person is subject to an upwards force from the Earth. This is what makes them move upwards in reference to aether. Once they jump, there is no longer a force acting on them: and as such, they will be stationary with reference to the aether, and so will fall to the ground with its flow. Your ball example is correct, but remember that on the Earth's surface we are not in a vacuum. With no external reference frame, aether may be viewed as stationary no matter how it flows. It's only the variation in flow (such as another in a separate direction) that would make the flow of aether have any noticeable effect.
The cliche blanket analogy may be the easiest way to grasp this. If you have an object A resting on a blanket, it will move as the blanket does. If there is a fixed object (the Earth), and the object A is pulled against it, A will be caught in place. Pull as much as you want on the blanket, the object will keep A in place. However, if you push A up away from the object, there is nothing to prevent its usual motion, and it will be dragged back.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 3, 2016 7:58:38 GMT
I think the root of my misunderstanding, still, is the nature of classical mechanics.
To clarify, do objects have inertia?
Will an object in motion with constant velocity (relative to ANY non-accelerating reference frame) maintain that constant velocity until acted upon by a physical force?
To change an object's motion, mustn't a force be applied?
Is it true that an object in motion in a vacuum requires no additional force to maintain a velocity?
In the fence and car example, if we assume the car is moving at a constant rate, there need not be any force applied to the fence. The fence is moving away from the car with equal and opposite velocity. No forces need be involved, because there is no change in motion, no acceleration. If the car were to go faster, or to slow, the symmetry of the velocities will break down because the car's persepctive is now an accelerating reference frame. I believe this would change relativistic considerations as to forces and mechanics, correct?
The blanket analogy is unfortunately not helping me. I understand why an object A on a blanket pushed away from a fixed object will then be pulled along the blanket back to the fixed object, because the blanket drags the ball via frictional forces. The blanket directly applies a physical force to object A in order to chnage object A's motion.
If there were no friction between the blanket and object A, perhaps the blanket were instead hypothetically: perfectly frictionless ice, would not object A continue on indefinitely away from the fixed object after object A is pushed? And is an object, adjacent to a fixed object, sitting atop moving frictionless ice, an accurate analogy of matter on Earth, the Earth, and Aether?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 3, 2016 16:48:17 GMT
Newton's Laws do hold, yes.
The blanket analogy is just an analogy, unfortunately, and so it will inevitably fall apart when examined. Space wouldn't be frictionless however: quite the opposite. The point is objects exist at a point in space: an object cannot exist without occupying those points in space. If those points are altered, then there will inevitably be a knock-on effect. For an object to move from one point in space to another, that requires velocity: which requires acceleration, and so force. In the absence of any such force, an object will occupy the same points in space. If those points shift (which is simply the flow of space), the object will appear to shift when viewed from an external reference frame. However, it's space that moves: the object is perfectly stationary. Remember that space is the variable here. That's fundamental. Why would an object require force to stay at the same point in space?
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 3, 2016 19:22:42 GMT
I am getting more confused. Once an object acquires velocity, will it retain that velocity until a force acts upon it?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 4, 2016 14:34:41 GMT
Yes. Newton's laws hold.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 5, 2016 12:36:06 GMT
Ok, here is a hypothetical situation that I believe will help me, if it is reconciled with the dual earth model. I have endeavored to label my statements and questions as to have them answered specifically. I feel I have been getting confused due to the fact I have not understood which parts of my previous posts are being responded to in addition to the fact that I have not understood whether some parts of my posts are being addressed at all. If I may ask a favor: please label the sections of the response to this post according to the labels I have chosen. I would be most grateful and I am confident it would aid in my understanding.
Let us assume there is a hypothetical point "attached" to a point in space, or, to a point in the Aether (or in other words, it is representative of a unique point in the Aether). In a certain range from above the surface of the Earth to within the Earth, the hypothetical point (let's call it Point A) travels with constant velocity toward the Earth (in other words, down or downward) due to the constant movement of the Aether. Is the previous statement, let's call it Premise 1, possible and compatible with the Dual Earth Model?
Relative to Point A, a person standing on the surface of the Earth is moving upward (in other words, the person has a velocity vector pointing away from Earth) due to the movement of the Aether (in other words, the Aether, and thus Point A, is moving with an opposite, but equal magnitude, velocity vector relative to the person). Is this statement, let's call it Premise 2, possible and compatible with the Dual Earth Model?
When the person standing on the surface of the Earth jumps, the person applies a force to the surface of the Earth, and, consequently, the surface of the Earth applies an equal and opposite force to the person (as per Newton's Laws). The direction of the force applied by the Earth to the person is upward. The force applied by the Earth to the person accelerates the person upward from Earth (F=ma according to Newton's Laws). Is this statement, let's call it Premise 3, possible and compatible with the Dual Earth Model?
If the person has accelerated away from Earth, his or her velocity vector will have increased in magnitude, still pointing away from Earth, relative to the Aether and Point A. If the velocity vector of Earth and the person are in the same direction, yet the person's velocity vector's magnitude is greater than that of the Earth's velocity vector (all vectors still relative to Point A), then the distance between the Earth and the person will increase as time advances. Is this statement, let's call it Premise 4, possible and compatible with the Dual Earth Model?
In order to alter the person's velocity, a force must be applied to the person. After jumping (the force of the jump having altered the person's velocity so that its upward magnitude is greater than when the person was standing on the surface of the Earth), what force will further alter the person's velocity? Let's call this question Question 1.
In response to the your second-most recent reply, you state "Space wouldn't be frictionless however: quite the opposite." I require clarification on this point. As I understand it, friction is an electromagnetic interaction between masses. If space or Aether does not exert any force (which is how I interpret your previous statements in this post) on matter, how can friction occur between matter and space? Let's call this question Question 2.
Thank you in advance for your time and thoroughness. I am excited to accept the Dual Earth Model. I feel am ever so close to breaching the gap!
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Feb 5, 2016 13:46:16 GMT
If premise 1 is a fixed point in space ("attached to a point in aether,") then by definition it doesn't have velocity. It is stationary. It may appear to have velocity, however, when viewed from the Earth, as the Earth is not moving with the flow of aether. That's just a matter of reference frames: the object itself is stationary with respect to space, and so has no velocity. If you mean 'velocity' colloquially, however (meant as a reference frame dependent observation) then premise 1 is compatible with DET. As a quick note, an object at a point in aether is an object with no force acting on it, nor with any momentum. If it occupies only one point in space, it isn't moving (and only appears to be moving from a reference frame not fixed with respect to the aether).
Premise 2: I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. The flow of aether does not move upwards from the Earth's surface, so someone would not move upwards due to its movement, so on those grounds it's impossible. If you meant that they move upwards with respect to point A, then that would be accurate however, as point A would be going down.
Premise 3 is fine.
Premise 4 is mixed. When a person jumps, they do gain an acceleration, but they also lose the force that the Earth was applying to them: the force that could allow them to oppose the flow of the aether and not descend when they stood on its surface. Think of it like leaping out of a car: you lose the force that was accelerating you, and you'll be stuck at the same velocity while the car rushes on. Take into account air resistance, you'll slow down even more. Don't think of standing on the Earth's surface as being at rest.
So:
1. Over the course of the jump, their velocity will be fixed, the instant they leave the Earth's surface: there is no longer any force or acceleration acting on them. When that happens, clearly air resistance will slow the figure down, but more relevantly the only acceleration the person has will be their own, gained from their jump, rather than that of the Earth's.
On 2, friction was only brought up with respect to the analogy being used. As you point out, it is impossible for space to literally possess friction.
|
|
|
Post by Merko on Feb 5, 2016 21:04:50 GMT
Great! I think have zeroed in on my problem. Everything you have said makes perfect sense to me (the latter interpretation of Premise 2 is correct), except for the response to Premise 4. Regarding the response to Premise 4, as soon as the person's feet have lost contact with the Earth, I agree the initial "jumping" force ceases to act on the person. The person, now moving through air, will begin to feel the force of drag (interacting with the air). The drag force vector will point in a direction opposite that of the person's velocity. The drag force vector's magnitude will always be proportional to the person's velocity's magnitude relative to the air (a faster object will feel more drag, a object sitting stationary relative to the air will feel no drag). The force of the drag will eventually cause the person's velocity, relative to the surrounding air, to become zero. At this point, the force of drag also becomes zero. What this will look like: the person jumps, appearing to move away from Earth. They will slow down (from the air) and then remain above the surface of the Earth unmoving relative to the air. Below is a series of figures I believe will help to illustrate my thoughts: In the diagram: v e = velocity of the Earth relative to the Aether, v p = velocity of the person relative to the Aether, v a = velocity of the air relative to the Aether, F j = force on the Earth exerted by the person's jump, F j' = the equal and opposite force applied by the Earth to the person due to the jump, F d = the force of drag due to the person's movement through the air. In Figure 1, a person (the circle) stand on the surface of the Earth (the horizontal line). Relative to the Aether, the Earth, the person, and the air are all moving with equal velocities. In Figure 2, the force of the jump on the person (F j') has increased the velocity of the person such that v p is now greater than v e and v a (these two are still equal). In Figure 3, the difference between v p and v e results in the distance between the Earth and the person increasing. The person's movement through the air results in a drag force (F d). This drag force will decrease as the difference between v p and v a decreases. In Figure 4, the drag force acting on the person over time has resulted in v p decreasing to once again be equal to v a and v e. The person's motion has resulted in a distance between the Earth and the person. In order for the person to return to his or her original position in Figure 1, v p must become lesser relative to v e. In order for any of these velocities in the diagram to change, a force must be applied. It is the origin of this force that I cannot find. Hopefully, the diagram is helpful in outlining my difficulty. I would be grateful if you could address the statements depicted by the figures and find any problems with them.
|
|