Aether theory assumes an aether which is separate from matter/forms that is suspended in that aether. RM:AO proposes that aether and the things in it are all the same thing – “it’s all aether”, just various concentrations and organizations of it.
Correct. Lorentz and James Maxwell were seriously on track. They apparently just couldn’t understand why light seemed to always be observed to be traveling the same speed. So they gave up on their “aether” theory and Minkowski introduced Einstein’s relativity.
Affectance Ontology doesn’t presume the existence of anything other than what has no choice but to exist, “affect”. But the logic based upon that one fact leads to an aether-like substance that necessarily fills all space. And as MM stated, that substance isn’t merely the medium in which other things travel called “aether”, but rather it is the actual substance of all things, period. And with close investigation, the reason for light appearing to travel at a constant speed relative to every observer can be realized without having to bend spacetime or play with extra dimensions or reversing time.
It is actually all pretty simple, just different than people have been taught.
Especially since Einstein’s relativity theory became dominant.
Here, Hatingme, prove your genius with this thread.
This is the proof against Special Relativity and also the explanation as to what was happening with the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Im fairly sure nothing was happening in the the Michelson and Morley experiment. The retards of the $cience industry thought aether was a magical wind that did not move with the earth. They were retards for believing this, aether actually is a pervading substance that moves with the Earth, as it is made up of the same material as anything else (though it is too low density to reflect light or stop our motion, and thus we can’t see it.) However, though it cannot stop our motion, without aether, nothing would be able to move (because how can an object move without pushing a pulling a medium through friction? You cannot move on ice that has no friction.
If me and James die as the only ones believing the Truth of Aether, then I die happy because I died knowing the Truth even though the $cience industry tried to make me die with a lie. It is as Jesus said, the Way of Truth is small, and the path of deceit is many.
The Michelson and Morley days version of aether was that it was a fundamental substance within which mass particles and waves of light traveled, like boats on water. What they didn’t realize is that the aether, the light, and the mass are all the same thing; “Affectance”.
Affectance has been proven to exist at every point in space. There is no option. Without affectance, there would be no “points in space”. Even distance is formed by the behavior of affectance (which is why Einstein’s relativity seems to work so well in the right situations).
You speak as if affectance theory exists as a mainstream theory of physics or known and accepted et al. Particles which make effect upon one another has been proven at every point in space, which is known as {relativistic} ‘observing’. Background radiation theory is not affectance theory ether, or at least I have never heard it be called that and my brother is a physicist.
note the red lines underneath the term affectance when posting!
Affectance isn’t a theory. It is a word. And there is no red line when I post it. Google “Effectance”.
Affect = to Act upon
Effect = End result
One refers to what is acting upon something (in psychology, usually upon children).
The other refers to the end result that the affect had, the effect.
From Google:
Regardless, it is proven merely by the thought that if you go anywhere in the universe, no matter what direction you look, you can see stars. But the only thing you can actually ever see is the light that is coming into your eyes. That means that everywhere throughout space is filled with at very least light photons, never mind the CMB and every other frequency range of EMR and gravity. It cannot be escaped. In combination, all of the things constitute the affectance. Or I should say that affectance forms those things.
I’ve been reading a bit more about relativity and I remembered this thread. Went to dig it up and look for what people said about it and… you got it. First response, on the mark. What a dude, go you.
You win the prize of everlasting glory for all history of this thread.
I’m no expert but - I don’t think so.
It looks to me that the triggers haven’t anything to do with time - but rather position. When the train is in a specific position - regardless of time - the triggers fire - both sets - train perspective and station perspective.
After the triggers fire - the question becomes about speed of light traveling in opposing directions from the perspective of train verses station. And it appears that both cannot be the true case. 
You don’t think so because you disagree with relativity, or because you think Phyllo’s answer disagrees with relativity? Would you like me to try to briefly explain why Phyllo’s answer does agree with relativity?
Neither mate.
Try instead to explain why my response doesn’t explain away Mr Phyllo’s answer.
They continue focused on the placement of the triggers—
Perhaps take it from there?
It seems to me that James is saying - “place the triggers where ever you want - just so they trigger as the train reaches the singular midpoint of the station” - presuming the midpoint is the midpoint for all observers - being a single point - not a length.
Phyllo’s answer doesn’t need explaining away, because his answer is in line with relativity. James was trying to prove relativity wrong, but he misunderstood how that situation would be modelled in relativity. Phyllo got it right - Phyllo’s interpretation is relativity’s interpretation. I can only explain why he got it right, I don’t have any other explanation to offer you right now.
That isn’t an explanation and doesn’t seem to be correct. James specifically referenced “SP” - special relativity - the whole point in having 2 trigger sets.
And regardless of any theory - the logic of the situation is either consistent or it isn’t. If it isn’t consistent - someone should point out the inconsistency.Saying that you believe some theory and so the other bloke is wrong - is just giving up the argument to faith (as he points out somewhere).
Yes, I offered an explanation and you said “no”, so I didn’t explain it.
I think you’ve misconstrued what this thread is about. I’ll lay out what I think it’s about and why:
The OP is meant to be a proof (or disproof) by contradiction. If you assme X, and then can show that X results in a contradiction, that’s one way of proving X is false.
The OP tries to use a proof by contradiction to prove that relativity is not true:
James is saying that this scenarios is a paradox (ie a contradiction) in Relativity. Since assuming Relativity produces a contradiction, Relativity must be false.
However, he has misunderstood the Relativistic way of dealing with this situation, and therefore the contradiction that he found may not in fact be there. The thing he misunderstood about Relativity is the very thing Phyllo pointed out in his first post.
This isn’t about me having faith in relativity, this is about me taking the proof by contradiction and analysing it. Phyllo’s analysis is correct. That’s independent of if relativity is true. Relativity doesn’t have to be true in order for this proof by contradiction to be false.
I object to the presumption that he is “trying to prove”.
He points out what appears to be an inconsistency in SP. If that inconsistency is not present - point out exactly where his scenario fails.
You proposed to explain SP. That seems merely a distractive sidetrack from the issue at hand - where is the inconsistency in HIS scenario? He does not ignore SP and appears to understand it quite well.
That’s fine mate - but that isn’t his argument. It is yours - although I would agree.
James countered Mr Phylo’s posts - as I pointed out. So what is YOUR argument? Do you disagree with James’ retort?
That is exactly my point - exactly what is wrong with James’ proposed paradox. Mr Phyllo’s argument was defeated - unless you have more to add.
If his retort involves maintaining that, in relativity, those two events (the left and right flashers being triggered) can be simultaneous in two very different reference frames, then yes, I must disagree. In relativity, if the left light and the right light go off simultaneously in the non-train reference frame, then they literally cannot go off simultaneously in the train reference frame.
I can explain this.
As I thought - you missed the point of James’ retort.
Think about it –
It is about what happens when the train reaches a specific point related to the station - it’s center. Observers might think that occurs at different times - irrelevant. Observers might perceive the train’s length differently - also irrelevant due to having multiple trigger sets for each frame. When it reaches that center both front and back flashes are triggered - irrelevant as to how or why.
The station has set the triggers to occur due only to the center positioning of the train. It is a matter of geometry - not time.
The geometry requires both triggers to be fired when the train is centered.
Relativity literally mathematically demands that if the two events are simultaneous in the station reference frame, they cannot be simultaneous in the train reference frame. If I’m missing James point, and James point involves these two events being simultaneous in both reference frames within relativity, then his point is incorrect.
Do you know what a Lorentz transformation is? Do you know how to use one, or why you would use one? If you did, you would understand why it’s literally impossible in relativity for these to be simultaneous in both reference frames.