[Physics] Clock time vs. common sense time

[Arend Lammertink]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Ilja Schmelzer
<ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2016-10-27 1:34 GMT+02:00, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com>:
>> I am happy to hear that you are a Presentist, but then, are you not in
>> direct opposition to views of relativists?
>
> Of course I oppose relativism.  I'm an ether theoretician.

Good!

>
> But I object against invalid criticism of relativity.  So, special
> relativity is from a physical point of view simply an unfortunate
> spacetime interpretation of the Lorentz-Einstein theory, which has
> also a reasonable, presentist interpretation, the Lorentz ether.

I would expect the "Lorentz ether" to be defined such that it behaves
well under the Lorentz transform. However, it is the Lorentz transform
itself, which pretty much demands the relativistic interpretation
BECAUSE it demands the speed of light to be constant across the
Universe.  See C.K. Thornhill:

http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf


>
> So, objections against relativity which talk about "Einstien's logical
> errors" and so on are simply nonsensical and have to be rejected.

I can live with that. After all, it's Maxwell's "logical error"!!!

> Similarly, claims that there is no time dilation are nonsense.

I don't know if really ALL of them are nonsense, but according to Paul
Stowe it is indeed possible to make an explanation for time dilation
from an aether theory.

> One
> has to understand that "time dilation" is about clock time, not true
> time, and that true time is not measurable with clocks.  And one has
> to develop ether theories, which are in agreement with all the
> observations of modern physics - as for gravity, as for particle
> physics, as for cosmology - even if they follow a different
> (non-relativistic, presentist) interpretation.  We can discuss this on
> http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/ too.

Paul Stowe and I suggest that a simple textbook definition for the
aether as an ideal non-viscous Newtonian fluid, can already explain a
number of "anomalies" as well as gravity. The model should hold for
the cosmic scale, although their is a lower limit, a theoretical
"minimum length" which lies way below the size of an atom.

It appears that the model works at electron-size scales, given Paul
Stowe's calculation for the elementary charge, e. So, even though
Stowe calculated a parameter "L" for his aether, I believe this
calculation is wrong, but I'm not 100% certain.

Either way, now that we found "Maxwell's hole" - the term dA/dt in his
definition for the electric scalar potential Ph- we must conclude that
it is exactly this hole which demands a solution like the Lorentz
transform, etc., etc.

With straightforward continuous vector field theory, we can show why
this term should not be there, which subsequently leads to a
consistent aether model for the electromagnetic fields as well as
gravity. within a model which is just beautiful in it's simplicity.

Best regards,

Arend.